GENESIS

T H E BOOK O F
T H E BEGINNINGS
 Other Books in the
BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES
0 ACTS MADE ACTUAL
0 THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE
0 ROMANS REALIZED
e HELPS PROM HEBREWS
0 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN POL. I & I1
0 GUIDANCE FROM GALATIANS
0 THE GREATEST WORE; IN THE WORLD
0 PAUL'S LETTER TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS
0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOL. I
0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOL. I1
0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE VOU. I11 & IV
0 LETTERS FROM PETER
0 THINKING THROUGH THESSALONIANS
0 STUDIES IN FIRST CORINTHIANS
0 STUDIES IN SECOND CORINTHIANS
0 THE SEER, THE SAVIOUR, AND THE SAVED IN THE BOOK
OF REVELATION
e STUDIES IN LUKE
0 JAMES AND JUDE
0 THE GOSPEL OF MARK
0 GENESIS VOLUME I
0 HEREBY WE KNOW-THE EPISTLES OF JOHN
0 STUDIES IN SAMUEL
0 OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

Other Books by C. C. Crawford

Published by DeHoff Pddicatioms, Murfreesborq Tennessee
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON ACTS
e SERMON OUTLINES ON THE RESTORATION PLEA
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON THE CROSS OF CHRIST
0 SERMON OUTLINES ON FIRST PRINCIPLES

Published by The College Press, Joplin, Missouri

0 SURVEY COURSE IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (in four Vols.)
0 GENESIS: THE BOOK OF THE BEGINNINGS VOIL. I
Published by Wm. C. Brown Book Go., Dubuque, Iowa
e COMMONSENSE ETHICS
..
11
BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES

GENESIS
THE BOOK OF
THE BEGINNINGS

VOl. 11.

C. C. CRAWFORD, Ph.D., LL,D.

College Press, Joplin, Missouri

...
1ll
Copyright, 1968

The College Press

iv
COMMON ABBREVIATIONS
art,, article
cf#,compare
clz., chapter
clzs., chapters
edit,, edition
egg,,for example
esp,, especially
et aZ,, and others
@,, following
fn,, footnote
GT,,Greek
Hel?,, Hebrew
ibid,, the same
i.e,,that is
in Zwo, in the proper place
Z., line
ll,, lines
Lt., latin
infra, below
Intro., introduction
op. cit., in the work cited
P * , page
PP., pages
par,, paragraph
per se, by or of itself
sect., section
supra, above
s.v., under the word
tmns,, traiislated
v , , verse
ov., verses
uix, namely
vol., voluine

V
 SPECIFIC ABBREVIATIONS
(BI B L I 0 GRAPH I C AL)

ACB Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible. Twentieth

American Edition (revised by Stevenson). (Funk and Wagnalls,
New York).
ACR Wilhelm Moeller, Are the Critics Right? Trans. by C. H. Ir-
win. ( Revell, New York, 1899).
AD J. W. McGarvey, The Authorship of Deuteronomy. (Standard,
Cincinnati, 1902) ,
AOT Merrill F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testamenf.
(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1954) ,
ARI W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel.
( Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1956).
ASV, or ARV American Standard Edition of the Revised Versioil
of the Bible (1901).
AtD Gaalyahu Cornfeld (Editor), From Adam to Daniel. (Mac-
millan, New York, 1961).
AV Authorized (Kiiig James) Version of the Bible
BA J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology. (Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, 1961)-
BA Emil G. Kraeling, Bible Atlas, (Rand McNally, Chicago,
1956).
BBA Charles F. Pfeiffer, Baker’s Bible Atlas. (Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, 1961) .
BC J. W. McGarvey, Biblical Criticism. ( Standard, Cincinnati,
1910).
BCOTP C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the
Old Testament: The Pentateuch, Vol. I. Translated from the Ger-
man by James Martin. (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids).
BE George Gamow, Biography of the Earth. (Mentor Book, New
American Library, New York, 1948).
BGJI Julian Morgenstern, The Book of Genesis: A Jewish Inter-
pretation. ( Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1927).
BMBE Ashley S. Johnson, The Busy Man’s Bible Encyclopedia.
( College Press, Joplin).
CC C. S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity. (Macmillan, 1943).
CDHCG John Peter Lange, Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical
Commentary: Genesis. Trans. from the German, with Comments,
by Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman. (Scribners, New York. 1868).
CEHS H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Experience of the
Holy Spirit. (Harper, New York, 1928).
vi
 CG Adam Clarke, Commentary: Genesis, ( Waugh and Mason,
New York, 1832).
CHB J, R, Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible. (Mac-
millan, 1909, 1950),
Conf. Augustine, Confessions, Pusey Translation. (Everyman’s Li-
brary, Dutton, 1907).
Cos J, A. McWilliams, SJ,, Cosmology, (Macmillan, New York,
1939),
Cr Arnold Guyot, Creation. (Scribners, 1884).
CS A, Campbell, Christian System. (Christian Board of Publica-
tion, St. Louis, 1835).
CU George Gamow, T h e Creation of the Univeise. (Mentor
Book).
CVSS Bernard Ramm, T h e Clzristian V i e w of Science and Scrip-
ture. (Eerdmans, 1954).
CWB Matthew Henry, Commentary o n the W h o l e Bible (in one
volume), (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1961).
DC James 13. Breasted, T h e D a w n of Conscience, (Scribners,
1939),
DD H. W. Everest, T h e Divine Demonstration.
DGL Augustine, D e Genesi ad Litteram. (Augustine’s Treatise on
Genesis ) .
DG William Robinson, T h e Devil and G o d . (Abingdon-Cokes-
bury, New York and Nashville, 1945)-
EA Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action. (Mentor Book),
EB Joseph Bryant Rotherham, T h e Emphasized Bible, (Kregel,
Grand Rapids, 1959).
EB Isaac Errett, Evenings with the Bible. (Standard, Cincinnati;
now available from Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville,
EBG Marcus Dods, T h e Expositor‘s Bible: Genesis. (Armstrong,
New York, 1895).
EHS Alexander Maclaren, Exposition of Holy Scriptures: Genesis.
(Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1904, 1912),
ELD William Smith and Theophilus D. Hall, Englisli-Latin Dic-
tionary. (American Book Company, and Harper, 1871).
EM Gilbert K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man. (An Image
Book, Doubleday, 1925).
EOM Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man. (Yale University Press,
New Haven, 1944).
ET Ernest C. Messenger, Evolution and Theology, (Macmillan,
1932).
FBM 0. T, Allis, T h e Five Books of Moses, (Presbyterian and Re-
formed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1943).
vii
 FPOTC D. E. Sharp, Franciscan Philosophy a t Oxford i n h e
Thirteenth Century. (Oxford University Press, 1930).
FSAC W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity. Sec-
ond Edition. (A Doubleday Anchor Rook, 1957).
FYPR Hamlin Garland, Forty Years of P s ~ c h i cResearch. (Mac-
millan, 1936)-
GB Charles Shook, The Gist of the Bible. (Standard, Cincinnati),
GBBD Charles F. Kraft, Genesis: Beginnings of t h e Biblicul
Drama. (Board of Missions, The Methodist Church. 1964).
GEL Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon. New Edition, Re-
vised by Jones and McKenzie. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1843,
1948).
GP C. E. M. Joad, Guide t o Philosophy. (Victor Gollancz, Lon-
don, and Dover Publications, New York, 1936).
HC Robert Ulich, T h e H u m a n Career. (Harper, 1955).
HDT Jules Lebreton, S.J., History of t h e Dogma of the Trinity,
Vol. I. Trans. by Algar Thorald from the Eighth Edition. (Ben-
ziger Brothers, 1939)-
HHH Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns, and HomeTica. Trans. by
Evelyn-White. ( Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University
Press, 1929).
HSGP John Owen, T h e Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. (Kregel,
Grand Rapids, 1954).
HHH H. I. Hester, T h e Heart of Hebrew History. (Wm. Jewel1
Press, Liberty, Missouri, 1949).
HU Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, H y m n of the Universe. (Harper
and Row, 1961).
IBG Cuthbert A. Simpson, Walter Russell Bowie, T h e Inter-
preter’s Bible: Genesis. ( Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952) .
ICCFTh James Everett Frame, T h e International Critical Com-
mentary: First Thessalonians. ( Scribners, 1953) .
ICCG John Skinner, T h e International Critical Commentary: Gen-
esis. (Scribners, 1910).
ICCH James Moff att, T h e International Critical Commentary:
Hebrews. ( Scribners, 1924, 1952).
IGOT Merrill F. Unger, Introductory Guide to t h e Old Testa-
ment. (Zondervan, 1951)-
IH Rudolph Otto, T h e Idea of the Holy. Third Revision, trans.
by J. W. Harvey. (Oxford, 1925).
IHR C. H. Toy, Introduction to the History of Religions. (Har-
vard University Press, 1924).
ISBE T h e International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. James Orr,
editor. ( Howard-Severance Co., Chicago, 1915).
viii
ISA Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam, ( I-Iougliton Miff lin,
Boston, 1955)-
JCHE Meade E, Dutt, Jesus Christ in Huniaii Experience. (Stand-
ard, Cincinnati),
Lang. Edward Sapir, Lamyrage, (Harvest Book: I-Iarcourt, Brace,
1921, 1949),
LAP Jack Finegan, Light from tke Ancienf Past, (Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1947),
LCL Loeb CIassical Library of the Greek and Latin writings,
in the original and in English translation, ( Ilarvard University
Press, Cambridge),
LD Ilarper’s Latin Dictionary. Andrews’s Freund, revised by
Lewis and Sliort. ( American Book Company; Ilarper, 1879; copy-
right, 1907, by Margaret Lewis).
LIP Harold W. Titus, T,iviizg Issues in Pliilosoplzy. Third Edition,
(American Book Company, 1959).
LOTB Albert T. Clay, Light o n the Old Testanzent from Babel.
(Sunday School Times Co,, 1907).
LOT Julius A. Brewer, Tlze Literature of the Old Testament,
Third Edition, Revised by Emil G, Kraeling, (Columbia Uni-
versity Press, 1962),
LP Alexander Campbell, Lectures o n the Pentateuch. (13.. S. Bos-
worth, Cincinnati, 1867).
MC C. S. Lewis, M e i z Christianity, (Macmillan, 1952).
MDNSA A Cressy Morrison, M a n Docs N o t Stand Alone. (Revell,
New York, 1944).
MDCB Theodore Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Claristipn Belief.
(Scribner, Armstrong and Company, New York, 1874),
ME George Gaylord Simpson, The A4eaiziiig of Evolution. (Men-
tor Book, 1951).
MFJH Max Lerner, The &find a i d Faith of Justice Holmes.
(Modern Library Edition, 1954).
MG James G. Murphy, d4u;yhy o n Genesis. (Estes and Lauriat,
Boston, 1873) ,
MG Ralph H. Elliott, The Message of Genesis. (An’Abbott Book,
Bethany Press, St. Louis),
MH Paul De Kruif, ikficrobe Hunters. (Pocket Books, Inc,, 1940,
1959)4

MM Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker. (Living Age

Book, 1956).
MPR Samuel M. Thompson, A n4odern Philosophy of Religion.
( Regnery, Chicago, 1%5),
ix
 MS A. J. Gordon, T h e Ministry of the Spirit. (Revell, New York,
1895) .
MS Ernst Cassirer, T h e M y t h of t h e State. (Doubleday Anchor
Book. Yale University Press, 1946).
MSH Rollo May, Man’s Search for Himself. (Norton, 1953).
MU Alexis Carrell, M a n the Unknown. (Harper, New York,
1935).
MUB Harry Emerson Fosdick, T h e Modern Use of t h e Bible.
( Macmillan, 1924).
NBG C. H. Mackintosh (“C.H.M.”), Notes o n the Book of Gen-
esis. (Loizeaux Brothers, New York. First edition in 1880; twenty-
sixth printing, 1959).
NBS Sir James Jeans, T h e N e w Background of Science. (Mac-
millan, New York, ).
NMG Oliver L. Reiser, Nature, M a n and God. (University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1951).
NMR George P. Fisher, T h e Nature and Method of Revelation.
(Scribners, 1890),
NPW Sir Arthur Eddington, T h e Nature of the Physical World.
( Macmillan, 1933).
NU Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe. (Mentor Book,
1957).
OG Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., T h e One God. Trans. by
Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B., S.T.D. (Herder, St. Louis, 1943).
PBG Joseph Parker, T h e People’s Bible: Genesis. (Hazell, Wat-
son, and Viney, London, 1896).
PC F. M. Cornford, Plato’s Cosnzologrj. (Harcourt, Brace, 1937).
PCG Thomas Whitelaw, Exposition, T h e Pulpit Commentary:
Genesis. New Edition. (Funk and Wagnalls, London and New
York).
PCH J. Barmby and C. Jerdan, Pulpit Commentary: Hebrews.
PCTH P. J. Cloag, Pulpit Commentary: Thessalonians.
PE Timothy J. Rrosnahan, Prolegomena t o Ethics. (Fordham
University Press, New York, 1941).
PM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, T h e Phenomenon of Man. (Har-
per Torchbook, 1961).
PNK Susanne Langer, Philosophy in a N e w Key. (Mentor Book,
1942).
PPT Hocking, Blanshard, Hendel, Randall, Jr., Preface t o Philoso-
phy: Textbook. ( Macmillan, 1947).
PR Edgar S . Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion. ( Prestice-Hall,
New York, 1946).
PR D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of ReZigion. (Harper, 1957).
X
PURT Eric11 Frank, Philosophdcal Understanding and Religious
Truth, (Oxford, 1945),
RD Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (Farrar, Strauss, and
Cudahy, New York, 1959).
RF L, P. Jacks, Religious Foundatdons. (Rufus M. Jones, Editor.
Macmillan, 1923),
RI Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Begin-
nings to the Babylonian Exile. Translated and abridged by Moshe
Greenberg. (University of Chicago Press, 1960),
RTOT Albert C, Knudson, The Religious Teaching of the Old
Testament. ( Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1918), *
RS H. C. Christopher, The Remedial System,
RSFI W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites: Tlw
Fundamental Institutions, ( Appleton, New York, 1889),
RSV The Revised Standard Version of the Bible,
SBG W, E, Powers, Studies in the Book of Genesis. (Christian
Alliance Publishing Company, New York, 1928),
SH C. W, Ceram, The Secret of tlte Hittites, Trans. from the Ger-
man by Richard and Clara Winston, (Knopf, 1956).
SMP Selections from iMedieval Philosopkers, Richard McKeon,
Editor. (Scribners, 1929).
SOT1 Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Szrrvey of Old Testament Intro-
duction. ( Moody Press, Chicago, 1964).
SR Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption. (Christian Publishing
Company, St. Louis, 1868).
SRG James H. Jauncey, Science Returns to God, (Zondervan,
1961),
ST Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology. One-Volume
Edition, (Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1907).
ST Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
STS R. M. MacIver, Society: A Textbook of Sociology. (Farrar
and Rinehart, New York, 1937).
SUW Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, Science and the Unseen
World. ( Macmillan, 1930).
TMB J. W. Monser, Types and Metaphors of the Bible. (F. L.
Rowe, Cincinnati, 1936).
TMV Sir James Jeans, This Mysterious Universe, New Revised
Edition, ( Macmillan, 1943).
TSMR Henri Bergson, The Two Sources of Morality and Religion.
Translated by Audra and Brereton. (Henry Holt, 1935).
TP Nathaniel Micklem, The Theology of Politics. (Oxford, 1941) .
xi
U3G William Henry Green, The Unity of the Book of Genesis.
(Scribners, 1895).
UDE Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein. (Sloane
Associates, New York, 1948).
VS George Matheson, Voices of the Spirit. (Hodder and Stough-
ton, New Work).
WLP E. V. Miller, Within the Living Plant. (Blakeston Company,
Toronto, 1952).
WMIA John Gillin, The Wags of Men: An Introduction to Anthro-
pology. ( Appleton-Century, 1948).
WPNT A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.
In six volumes. ( Broadman Press, Nashville, 1930)
I

xii
 ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ABBREVIATIONS
(BIBLIOGRAPHICAL )
(as used in this Volume only)

ABOT Aldo J. Tos, Acproaches to the Bible: The Old Testament,

Prentice-Hall, 1963.
AC Miguel de Unamuno, The Agony of Christianity, trans. by Pierre
Loving. Payson and Clarke Ltd., New York, 1928,
ADB John W, Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Originally
published in 1874. Out of print,
Anth. Alexander Goldenweiser, Anthropology, Crofts, 1946.
BG Charles F, Pfeiffer, The Book of Genesis, Shield Bible Study Series,
Raker, Grand Rapids, 1963.
BMS Henry M. Morris, The Bible ued Modern Science, Moody Press,
1958.
BS Godet, Biblical Studies, Out of print.
BWR Hugh J, Schonfeld, The Bible Was Right, Signet Key Book,
New American Library of World Literature, 1959.
CAZ Edw. F. Campbell, Jr., The Chronology of the AmMna Letters.
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1964.
CBL Kitto, Cyclopedia of Biblicul Literature, Out of print.
CDD G. K. Chesterton, Chesterton Day by Day, Second Edition. Kegan
Paul, Trench, Trubner, et al, 1912.
CG F. E. D. Schleiermacher, Christliche Ghgbe.
CR Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romws, Christian Publishing Com-
pany, St. Louis, 1975.
CR I;. A. Filby, Creatiow Reveded. Revell, 1963.
DBI Kitto, Daily Bible Illustrations, Out of print.
DEAM J. D. Thomas, The D o c t h e of Euohtion and the Antiquity
of Mm. Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Texas, 1963.
DHS John Owen (1616-1683), Disco.zlrse Colzcerlzhzg the Holy S p k k
Earlier issues undated. Reissued by Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1954.
DM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milie#, Paris, 1957.
EE Jacques Maritain, Existence a d the Existent, trans. by Galantiere
and Philan. Pantheon Book, 1948. Image Book, 1957.
EG H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. Baker, 1942.
EHS F. E, Marsh, Emblems of the Holy Spiriz, Pickering and Inglis,
London, 1888, 1923.
Exst, Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism, Trans. by Frechtman, New Yorlc,
1947.
FG John W. McGarvey and Philip Y . Pendleton, T h e FowfoM Gospel,
Standard Publishing, Cincinnati.
.*.
Xlll
 F1. Alfred M. Rehwinkel, The Flolod. Concordia, St. Lobis, 1951.
FM Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future , Trans. by Denny,
Harper, 1964.
GEOTP Alexander Heidel, The Gilgmesh E& md Old Testament
Pdwa22els, Second Edition. University of Chicago Press, 1949.
GF Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., The Genesis Flood.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1966.
GP Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed. Trans. from the
original Arabic by Friedlander. Dover, 1956.
GPE Jacques Maritain, God and the Pennissiod of Evil. Trans. by
Evans. Bruce, Milwaukee.
GPS T. W. Brents, The Gos$el Plan of Sdation. Gospel Advocate,
Nashville, 1928. !.
HBD Hdr$er’s Bible L;lictiomry, Sixth Edition. By Madeleine S. and
J. Lane Miller. New York, 1959.
Herm. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics. Standard, Cincinnati. Out of print.
HSHS W. E. Biederwolf, A Help to the Study of .the Holy S@it.
Revell, New York, 1904.
HU Pierre Teilhard. de Chardin, Hymn of the Univsrse. Trans. by
Bartholomew. Harper, 1965.
ICR John Calvin, Ifistitz&es of the Christian Religion, Trans. by Batrles.
Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 2 vols., 1960.
IHI William Jennings Bryan, In His Image. Revell, l922.
ILSM Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel, IntroductioG tot Logic and
the Scimtific Method. Harcoirt, Brace, 1934.
IRP John Wild, Introdmion to d Redistic PMoso$hy. Harper, 1948.
ISA Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adamb Trans. from the German by.
Cleugh. Houghton Mifflin, 1956.
JB T h e Jewsalem Bible. Alexander Jones, Editor. Doubleday, 1966.
KV Knowledge and Vulue, edited by Sprague and Taylar. Harcourt,
Brace, 1959.
LPh Living Philoso@hies. “A series of intimate credos.:: Simon and
Schuster, 1931,
LS J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science. Mentor Book, 1949.
MOT Abba Hillel Silver, Moses md the orighzul Torah. Macmillan,
1961.
MP Will Durant, The Mansions of PbiZosopby. Simon and Schuster,
1929.
NBD J. D. Douglas, The N e w Bible Dictiomry. Eerdmans, 1962.
NG C. H. Mackintosh (“C.H.M.”), Notes on Genesis. First Printing,
1880; Twenty-sixth Printing, 1959. Loizeaux Brothers, New York.
OBH B. S. Dean, Oatbne of Bible History. Standard, Cincinnati.
OK Glenn Negley, The Organization of Know?edge. Prentice-Hall,
1942.
xiv
OTH William Smith and Wilbur Fields, et: al, Old Testament History,
College Press, Joplin, Missouri, 1967.
PA Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Patrimrchal Age, Baker, 1961.
PC William Henry Roberts, Tbs Problem of Choice, Ginn, Chicago,
1941.
PHD James R. Illingworth, Personality: Hu.mm and DiVimo Bampton
Lectures for 1894. Macrnillan, London, 1923, A small book, now out
of print, but a classic in its field,
PLS John G. Kemeny, A Philosofher Looks at Science. Van Nostrand,
1959.
PPI Gordon W. Allport, Persowlity : A Psychological lnterfreatiotz,
Holt, 1937.
RH The Restor&ow Herald, Cincinnati, Ohio
RMNC M. M. Davis, T h e Restoratiow M0vemen.t of the Nineteelzth
Cetttzlry. Standard, 1914.
RSB Charles P. Pfeiffer, Ras Sbamra d ,the Bible, Baker, 1962.
SBS Henry M. Morris, Studies ita the Bible and Sciewce, Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1966.
SHS C. Gordon Brounville, Symbols of the Holy Sfirit. Out of print.
SIB The Self-lltterfirethg Bib2e (in four volumes), James W. Lee,
Editor, N. D. Thompson Publishing Company, New York and St.
Louis, 1896.
SMP Etienne Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, Scribner, 1936.
STC R. M. MacIver, Society: A Textbook of Sociology, Farrar and
Rinehart, 1937.
TAB Charles P . Pfeiffer, Te12 El Ama~ma d the Bibb, Baker, 1963.
TBHB A. P. Weiss, A Theoretical Basis of H u m m Behavior, R. G .
Adams Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1925.
TP Robert E. Brennan, O.P., Ph.D., Thomistic Philosophy. Macmillan,
1941.
TWC Edw. Chiera, They Wrote on Chy, University of Chicago Press,
1956.
WSAE Robert T, Clark and Tames D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept
Evohtdow. Baker, 1966.
YGOT Robert W. Gleason, S.J., Yahweh: The God of the Old Test#
met.@, Prentice-Hall, 1964.

XV
 EXPLANATORY
It will be noted that I have included in this Volume
excerpts from works that were in common use in “theo-
logical” circles a t the turn of the present century and
even earlier. Unfortunately, most of these books are now
out of print despite the fact that they provide a complete
refutation of the various (falsely so-called) “liberal” views
now in vogue throughout the “standardized” seminarian
world (cf. 1 Tim. 6:20). (A notable example is the
great work by William Henry Green, entitled The Unity
o f the Book o f Genesis; another is The Authorshi) of
Deutoronomy by our own J. W. McGarvey.) Now it
so happens that I have kept excerpts from some of these
books in my files for some forty years or more. To try
t o run down the information as t o the publisher, date of
publication, and page number or numbers of these, is
entirely too time-ccmsuming. Hence, I have simply given,
in all such cases, the name of the author and the title of
the book from which the excerpt was taken. I vouch
for the accuracy of these quotations.
The present intention is to bring out a third and final
Volume in this series, the content of which will cover the
story of the Patriarchal Age-that of Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob and Joseph. We hope to have this ready for publi-
cation within a year and to provide therein an index for
all three Volumes.
C. C. Crawford.

xvi
 CONTENTS

Part Eleven: The Problem of Evil -~________________________r__r__ 1

Part Twelve: The Beginning of Moral Evil, on Earth __ 60

Part Fourteen: Theological Gobbledygook and the

Narrative of the Fall ______________.______.__________
220

Part Eighteen: The Beginnings of Human Culture ----430

Part Nineteen: The Beginnings of the Messianic Line _-443

Part Twenty: The World Before the Flood 471

Part Twenty-one: The World Under the Flood -.------499

Part Twenty-two: The World After the Flood ----.-.-.-5 56

Part Twenty-three: The Beginnings of the Nations ---- 602

Part Twenty-f our: The Beginning Again of

Human Presumption ~ __________________ 62 5

xvii
xviii
 PART ELEVEN:
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
1, T h e Problem o f Evil. Generically, evil is of two kinds:
iiioral evil (sin), and Physical or iiatural evil (suffering),
The over-all problem is well stated by Briglitinan as fol-
lows: “There is no dialectic of evil corresponding to t h e
dialectic of good, for good is inherently rational and evil
inherently nonrational. Good is a principle of totality, of
coherence, of meaning. Evil is a principle of fragmentari-
ness, of incoherence, of mockery. Hence there is no imma-
nent logic in evil; evil is the Satan that l a u g h a t logic,
Yet there is logic in thought about evil, aiid many more
or less logical solutions of evil have been proposed.”l (Of
course, for the unbelieving pessimist, to whom the totality
of being is the product of sheer chance, and life meaning-
less, the problem of evil does not exist, Nor does it exist
for the crass materialist who rejects morality in toto and
substitutes expedieiic3i for it.) However, i t should be noted
here, a t the outset, that in any study of the problem of
evil, the problem of good cannot be avoided: in fact the
problem is a compound one-the problem of good and evil.
We list here some of the more significant proposals which
human “philosophy” (speculation) has p u t forward in the
course of time, as solutions of the problem.
(1) The proposal that suffering is a Diuiiie inflicfioii
of piui.ish?ne?it01% a persoii directly f o r a specific siii or
COTWSB of siiz iiidulged by him, “He must not have been
living right.” “Why did God take our baby from us?”
(a) The simple truth is that God does not directly “take”
anyone: the God of the Bible is not a murderer. It is the
Devil who is the murderer: the Devil murdered the whole
human raceswhen he seduced the Man and the Woman into
sin (Gen. 3:17-19, John 8:44, Heb. 2:14-15), To be
sure, in an over-all sense, death is in the world because
sin is in the world (Rom. 3:23, 5:12; 1 Cor. 1?:20-26;
Jas. 1 : 1 3 - 1 ? ) . But this does not mean t h a t suffering is a
1
 GENESIS
calamity directly inflicted on a person as punishment for
his own personal sins. (b) This crude theory is flatly
contradicted by the discourses which go to make up the
Old Testament book of Job. Job’s “comforters,’’ it will
be recalled, tried in vain to convince him that his calam-
ities were Divine inflictions for some great sin he had
committed. Job steadfastly refused to give any credence
to their platitudes. The conclusion of the whole matter
was the pronouncement of God Himself that the mystery
of good and evil, in its deepest significance, is beyond
human understanding (chs. 3 8 -41, 42 :1-6) , (c) This “old
wives’ fable” (1 Tim, 4 : 7 ) is just as flatly repudiated by
Jesus Himself and by the tenor of New Testament teach-
ing as a whole (Matt. 5:45, 13:24-30; Luke 1 3 : l - 5 ; John
9:1-12, 3 0 - 3 4 ) . (d) This proposed solution accounts only
for suffering, and not for the greater evil, sin (Jas. 1:12-
1 8 ; 1 John 3:4; Rom. 8:18-23; Ezek. 18:19-20). (e) The
notion is not in accord with human experience of observed
events in nature. St. Louis was hit by a devastating tornado
in 1927. From many St. Louis pulpits the following Lord’s
Day congregations had to listen t o pious fulminations to
the effect that God had sent the tornado on the city as a
punishment for its wickedness. But was St. Louis any more
wicked than New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, or
any other big city? Why, then, should St. Louis have been
singled out for such a catastrophic punishment? One is
reminded of the well-known couplet:
“If it’s true God spanked the town for being over-frisky,
Why did He burn the churches down and save Hotal-
ing’s whiskey?”
( I ) A final objection to this theory is that it is an insult
to God, in its implicit assumption that the wholesale de-
struction of innocent children which always accompanies
such catastrophes is to be a part of the Divine judgment.
(g) Ten young men set out across No Man’s Land in
2
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
World War I, Only two returned: it: is likely t h a t the
mother of each said, “I thank God for saving my boy.”
But what did the mothers of t h e other eight say? (11)
There is no Scripture evidence to t h e effect t h a t Chris-
tians will be shielded from physical evils just because they
are Christians. Indeed, the evidence is all to t h e contrary.
“In this world ye have tribulation,” said Jesus (John 16: 3 3 ;
Matt, 5:4$,13:24-30; Rom, 8 : 3 5 - 3 9 ) , (i) But, someone
may be asking: Why does God allow t h e wicked to prosper
and the righteous to suffer? One of the older Catechisms
gives t h e best answer, perhaps, to this difficult question,
as follows: “For two reasons: because the righteous can
be confirmed in true holiness only by trials and sufferings;
because God will not allow even the little good which t h e
wicked may do, to go unrewarded; and therefore, as He
cannot reward it in the next world, He takes this means
of allowing it to be rewarded in this world.”2
( 2 ) The proposal that all evil is illusory. The Absolut-
ists who define the Absolute as the All-embracing-
Plotinus, Spinoza, Hegel, e t al-must either concede t h a t
God embraces evil as well as good, or deny t h a t evil actually
exists. Invariably they drift into the latter position. But
is it true? Certainly it is belied by press reports from over
all the world, with their mass of sordid news about wars and
rumors of wars, riots, sex orgies, murders, horrible cruelties,
and crimes of every kind. Truly, violence abounds over
all the earth today, Moreover, an illusion cannot be an
illusion of nothing; hence, those who adopt this hypothesis
must explain how the illusion originated. We are prone
to forget that a figure must be a figure of soincthing, a
symbol a symbol of something, an appearance an appear-
ance of soiizethii?g, a proposition a proposition of soim-
ihjng, etc, It is just as difficult to account for an “illusion
of mortal mind” as it is to account for sin and suffering.
An even more serious objection to this theory is that, as
Trueblood puts it, “it would cut the nerve of moral effort
3
 GENESIS
if it were taken seriously.” He adds: “If all evil, whether
moral, natural, or intellectual, is truly illusory, we are
foolish indeed to f i g h t it; it’ would be far preferable to
forget it.’,’ Dr. L. P, Jacks asks the question, “How shall
we think of evil?” and answers it by saying, “We shall
think ill of it,” But how can we think ill of it if it does
not exist? “For my own part,” he goes on to say, “I would
rather live in a world which contained real evils which
all men recognize than in another where all men were such
imbeciles as to believe in the existence of evil which has no
existence a t all.”4 Trueblood rightly declares that “it is
hard to think of God in moral terms if there is no genuine
evil to fight.” Whittaker Chambers, in the final chapter
of his great book, Witness, in which he tells what he wants
for his son as the latter becomes a man, makes this final
impressive statement: “I want him to understand that evil
is not something that can be condescended to, waived aside
or smiled away, for it is not merely an uninvited guest, but
lies coiled’in foro iizterizo a t home with good within our-
selves. Evil can only be fought.”5 Plato wrote of evil as
“the wild beast” that is in the soul. The notion that evil
is illusory cuts the n e, not only of individual moral
effort, but of social progress as well: it is difficult, if not
impossible, to generate zeal with respect to that which
does not really exist.
( 3 ) The Proposal Zhnt evil is iiqcomplete good. Advo-
cates of this notion hold that the true is the whole, which
alone is truly. the good and the true and the beautiful.
For example, “many patches of color within a painting
are ugly, but the entire painting is beautiful,” or, “ditch-,
digging might seem worthless until its contribution to
civilization is perceived.’.’ Our weakness as human beings
is that of finitude; as Spinoza would have it, in this world
we are compelled to look a t things sub specie temporis; if
only we could. view the whole sub specie aeternitatis, we
4
 T H E PROBLEM OF EVIL
could see that this whole is a plenum in which everything
is rigidly necessitated; hence, t h a t what we call “evil” is
in reality only incomplete or unrealized good. But-how
can we reasonably derive the goodness of the whole (the
complete) from our awareness of the incompleteness of
things? In fact, is it not just as correct to say that in some
cases good is incomplete evil, as to say, in others, that evil
is incomplete good? The mystery of evil is, in some way,
inscrutable t o us, tied u p with the mystery of wholeness
(holiness) or perfection: this we do not deny, But pro-
posed palliative pronouncements do not give any pro-
portionate explanation of the rims of evil in the world and
the gross vicioumess which attends it. Sin and suffering
are not to be explained away with fastidious folderol, no
matter how apparently sophisticated it may be. This view
tends in the main toward Pollyana-ism: to become so satu-
rated with mere mental mush as to be irreconcilable with
the observed facts of the world around us. (Cf. Gen. 3:14-
19, where we are told explicitly that nature is not perfect,
but is, for the time being at least, under the curse of sin:
cf. Rom. 8:18-2Y.) The Bible is the most realistic book
ever given to the world.
(4) The projosal that evil is iieeded m a covtrasf t o
the good. From the beginning, the human mind has been
impressed with, and intrigued by, the play of opposites
discovered by experience. The ancient Pythagoreans con-
structed a Table of Opposites, and Socrates is made to
argue for immortality on t h e ground that, as opposites
tend to pass into each other, so what we call death is likely
to be but a passing over into new life. (See the Phaedo of
Plato.) A monotonous world-a world without all these
contrasts-(it is said) would be too boring to be endured,
Good i s in ‘constant danger of being lost in its conflict
with evil; this fact alone teaches us to appreciate its value.
As Henry van Dyke has put it, in quite simple terms:
5
 GENESIS
“If all the skies were sunshine,
Our faces would be fain
To feel once more upon them
The cooling spash of rain.
“If all the world were music,
Our hearts would often long
For one sweet strain of silence
To break the endless song.
“If life were always merry,
Our souls would seek relief
And rest from weary laughter
In the quiet arms of grief.”
This theory of contrast, it would seem, is not wholly false:
the contrasts of experience surely do often stimulate the
good. Still and all, this theory, like those stated above, fails
t o account for the great body of evil in the world and for
the gross inhumanities associated with it,
( S) The profiosal that suffering has a Mecessary dis-
ciplinary function. This view is supported both by ex-
perience and by Scripture. Suffering disciplines us, strips
us of false pride, teaches us that we are but pilgrims on
this earth, weary pilgrims who are sadly in need of a
Refuge and Strength. Suffering burns up the superficial
ambitions and pride of life, and turns us out as pure gold
tested by fire. Without suffering we should soon be
swallowed up by our own conceits; without suffering we
could never understand God’s love or be prepared for
Heaven, If, as Scripture states, it was necessary for the
Author of our salvation to be made perfect through suf-
fering (Heb. 2: l o ) , how can His saints hope to be per-
fected short of the same discipline? True it is that to the
already rebellious sinner, suffering may become a goad to
increased rebelliousness (which usually takes the form of
an orgy of self-pity) ; on the other hand, the true believer
uses suffering as a means of strengtheningthis moral fiber
6
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
and deepening his faith in God, Adversity does not create
good or evil in the heart, but is a potent force in bringing
into the open t h e good and evil attitudes t h a t are already
there, It i s also true, however, t h a t suffering has brought
many a hard-hearted worldly sinner to his knees in re-
pentance, The principle of vicarious suffering and sacri-
fice (the innocent for the guilty) is the fundamental
principle, not only of man’s redemption, but also of his
moral, social and spiritual progress in this present world,
Freedom will work only if we make it work; democracy
will work only if we make it work; and all too frequently
the preservation of democracy and freedom will demand
the shedding of innocent blood, The principle that with-
out the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb.
9 :22) -and no moral and spiritual progress-runs through-
out every aspect of man’s life on earth. As Elizabeth
Rarrett Browning has stated this eternal truth so clearly:
“ ‘There is no God,’ the foolish saith,
But none, ‘There is no sorrow,)
And nature oft the cry of faith
In bitter need will borrow,
Eyes which the preacher could not school
By wayside graves are raised,
And lips cry, ‘God, be merciful,’
That ne’er said, ‘God be praised.’ ”
(For the disciplinary function of suffering, cf. Job 5 :6-7,
17-20; Psa, 119:67, 71; Prov. 3:11-12; Rom. 8:18, 8:35-
39; 2 Cor. 4:7-18, 12:9-10; Meb. 1 2 : j - 1 3 ; Jas. 1:12; 1
Pet. 4:12-14; Rev* 3:19.)
So much for human speculative attempts to fathom
the profound mystery of sin and suffering. It is quite
evident that these various proposals fall far short of giving
any adequate clues to this mystery; hence, we are com-
pelled to turn elsewhere in our quest for the solution of it.
To what source, then, shall we t u r n ? Obviously, io
7
 GENESIS
revelation, to the Bible. God alone can give us the answer
we seek-an answer that must be accepted, to some extent,
by faith. All human thinking is evidence of the fact that
the heart of the problem lies beyond the scope of sheer
human intellection; that, as with most ultimates, reason
must be supplemented by faith. After all, knowledge is
a11 that w e believe on the basis of sound evidence and
logical thinking, $ h i s trustworthy Divine revelation (Rom.
10:17; 1 Cor. 2:9-11; Eph. 1:6-12, 3 : 1 - 1 2 ) , Then what
does the Bible teach us?
T h e Bible teaches clearly thnt sin originated in the free
choice of n personal beiug to challenge the sovereignty of
G o d . (After all is not m y sin committed by aMy person
just such a challenge?) And certainly this teaching is
confirmed u n i f o r m l y b y OILY haiinaiq experience. Sin must
have originated in the free choice of some persoiqal beiug
to assert his own will d o v e the will of God. Human ex-
perience is bound to testify that impersonal (subhuman)
entities are incapable of free choice; hence that they are
neither normal nor immoral per se, but amoral. Only per-
sons are moral beings. Whoever the first sinner was,
therefore, he was the first anarchist, and anarchy is the
first earmark of godlessness. The Bible teaches, more-
over, that this present life is but the battle-ground on
which the forces of good and the forces of evil are engaged
in mortal combat for possession of the souls of men (Eph.
2 : l - 3 , 3:lO-12, 6 : l l - 1 2 ; 2 Cor. 4:4; I Pet. 5 : 8 - 9 ) . This,
too, is unquestionably in accord with human experience.
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that physical evil is, in a
general sense, the penalty that follows upon the indulgence
of moral evil (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 5:12-14, 8:18-23).
(For the first statement of the law of heredity in litera-
ture, see Exo. 20:1-6. This passage has reference to the
ComeqziencCs of sin,, In Ezek. 18:19-20, the reference is
t o the gzdlt of sin.) Suffering and death serve to put
man in proper perspective to himself; they are proofs t h a t
8
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
he i s a creature utterly dependent on God’s providence for
his very.coiitiiiuance in existence.
Who, then, was this personal being who coinrnitted t h e
first violation of God’s law, Is man alone to be held
responsible for the introduction of moral and physical evil
into our world? I cannot convince myself that such is
the case-that man can be made to bear t h e whole burden
of responsibility for sin and suffering. In the name of
eternal Justice-that Justice which is said to be the founda-
tion of God’s throne (Psa, 89 :14) -something further,
something or someone above and beyond man must be
involved in this mystery with its many complex ramifica-
tions, Principal William Robinson of Overdale College,
quotes Canon Wheeler Robinson on this problem as fol-
lows: “For anything we know t o the contrary, there may
be other spiritual influences from beyond the human sphere,
such influences as were recognized crudely enough in the
ancient belief in demons and in Satan. We cannot rule
out the possibility of such extra-human influences.” Prin-
cipal Robiiison himself adds: “All I am concerned t o point
out a t the moment is that the question of believing in the
actuality of t h e Devil is not a question of being ‘advanced’
or ‘antiquated’ in one’s views. It is a much deeper ques-
tion than this. It is not a question of Biblical literalism,
but of seeing what the Bible is ‘driving at.’ It is a question
of being able to account ,for the evil in the world-both
physical and moral evil-while a t the same time preserving
belief in the goodness, integrity, and all-sufficiency of God,
Most, if not all, moral evils can be accounted for on the
assumption that man has free will and that his will is in
rebellion against the will of God. Much physical evil can
be accounted for as a by-product of the life process, but
not all. Writers like Dr. Tennant think of physical evil
as ‘necessarily incidental,’ But if it is both necessary and
incidental, how is it possible to relieve God from responsi-
bility for it? Either we must assume a ‘fall’ of some kind
9
 GENESIS
in a sphere beyond the human, or God must be the author
of evil. Strictly monotheistic religions have no other
course open to them than to assume either (1) that evil
is in the will of God, or ( 2 ) that there has been a primal
rebellion of some crmted will or wills against the will of
God. Is there any third alternative?” This writer goes on
to say that there have not been wanting teachers from
Origen (at the beginning of the third century) down to
our own day “who have realized that something further is
necessary, even in the matter of emphasis, if we are to ac-
count for physical as well as moral evil. The sin of man
cannot be made to bear the whole burden. They have
claimed that if we allow for the existence of discarnate
spirits and for the fact of a collateral or of a primary ‘fall’
in such a realm, this explains better than any other existing
theory the wide diffusion of evil in a universe which, as
Christians, we believe to have been created by an all-power-
ful, all-wise, and all-loving God. Admitting that vagueness
and indefiniteness of outline must necessarily be accepted,
2nd that there are many gaps in our knowledge which
condition this vagueness, such a view certainly does help to
explain evil present a t subhuman levels as well as throw
light on the practical question of temptation in man, and
on certain New Testament passages which insist that the
redemption of God extends to the whole cosmos and is not
concerned merely with man (see Acts 3:21, Rorn. 8:21, 2
Pet. 3 :13) .”‘
Thnt evil did hnwc its first beginuiirg it1 the fall of
Lririf rr, at? ailgel of superior attainments, is the tcacbiiig
of thc Bible. (Cf. John 8:44,1 Tim. 3:6, Luke 10:17-18,
2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6, Matt. 21:41, 1 Cor. 6:3, Rev. 20:lO.)
N o r does this doctrine necessarily impugn either God’s
omnipotence or His goodness, For what does Omnipotence
mean? It means that God has the power to do the in-
trinsically possible, but not the intrinsically impossible (e-g.,
it is impossible for God to lie, and yet be our God); the
10
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
intrinsically impossible would be t h a t which is not consis-
tent with His character, intelligence or will, God is self-
limited only; never can He be limited by imam and ends
determined by any source external to Himself, His good-
ness is clearly seen in the Supreme Sacrifice of Love which
He made for the redemption of His Creation (John 3:lG-
17; Rom. 3:23-24, 8 : 3 2 ; Eph, 2:4-10; Heb, 2:9-18, 1 2 : l -
2) *
Note the following pertinent statements: “That evil
exists is true, but is it necessarily evil that it does exist?”
“A world free of evil would have to be a world which
contained nothing capable of evil.” “The theistic solution
of the problem of evil, as against those who see the very
possibility of evil as something itself evil, can be summed
up in this: Not even God ea76 love a puppet. It goes
without saying that no puppet, however complicated may
be the motions through which i t is put, can love,”7
The “conclusion of the whole matter” is well stated by
W. Robertson-Smith as follows: “To reconcile the forgiv-
ing goodness of God with His absolute justice, is one of
the highest problems of spiritual religion, which in Chris-
tianity is solved by the doctrine of the Atoneitlent.”* To
which, in all truth, it should be added that it is resolved
nowhere else, in no other system, in no other cult, in no
other “religion,” than in the Christian religion-in the
fact of the vicarious Sacrifice of the Lamb of God for
the sin of the world (John 1:29, 1 Cor. 1Y:3) : the Act
in which God did for man what man could not do for
himself, to overcome the ravages of sin and suffering
(Roni, 3:21-26, 2 Cor, 5:17-21), and to vindicate His own
designs and sustain the majesty of His law (Roni. 2 : 5).
Although there is mystery here still, nevertheless we can
fathom it to an appreciable extent: undoubtedly the residue
of the mystery will be fully revealed when we shall see
God face to face and know fully even as also we shall be
fully known ( 1 John 3 :1-2, 1 Cor. 13 : 1 2 ) , Genuine faith,
11
 GENESIS
as in Job’s case, is willing to await the revelation of the
righteous judgment of God (Rorn. 2:5-6).
2 . T h e Doctriiie of Angels. Strong: “AS ministers of
divine providence, there is a class of finite beings, greater
in intelligence and power than man in his present state,
some of whom positively serve God’s purpose by holiness
and voluntary execution of his will, some negatively by
giving examples to the universe of defeated and punished
rebellion, and by illustrating God’s distinguishing grace in
man’s salvation.”’ Biblical teaching regarding angels, their
origin, nature, attributes, and works, may be summarized
as follows: (1) T h e y m e created beiizgs (Col. 1:16, Psa.
148: 1-6). ( 2 ) T h e y m e persoiinl beiuigs, Le., possessing
intelligence, feeling, and will ( 2 Sam. 14:20, Luke 2:8-
1.5, 2 Tim. 2:26, 1 Pet, .5:8, Rev. 7:11-12, 12:12). Cer-
tainly they are not just “good and evil thoughts.” ( 3 )
T h e y dye specinl order ( K i i z d ) of celestial ( e t h r w n l )
beiiags, iiicovporeal in any jhystcnl seiise of the t w i n , y e t
izot entirely bodiless: that is, they share the ethereal lumi-
nous substance of all creatures of the heavenly world.
Celestial beings cannot in the very nature of the case have
the characteristics of our physical organization. It is for
this reason we must lay aside our earthly bodies, and our
blood which is the seat of physical or animal life, and put
on spiritual (etheral) bodies adapted to our environment
in the next world, before we can be fully conformed to the
image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29; Lev. 1 7 : l l ; 1 Cor. 1.5344,
49, 50; 2 Cor. .5:1-8). (The reference in these last two
Scriptures is to the saints, not to the unconverted.)
Hence, not having physical bodies, angels are unlimited by
any sense of time or space, and know nothing of age,
growth, or death (Heb. 1:14, Luke 20:36) ; hence they
are also without sex distinctions (Matt. 22:23-30, 1 Cor.
15 : 50). It is obvious that pictorial representations which
have come down to LIS from medieval art, in which they
are represented as feminine creatures with wings, are wholly
12
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
without scriptural warrant, Angels are referred to in the
Bible in the masculine; moreover, ethereal beings have no
need for wings. This means, of course, that angels consti-
tute a company, and not a race; and that in all probability
each was created separately and t h a t each apostate angel
fell by his own act. Again, the assumption that angels are
creatures of the human imagination, corresponding to the
demigods of the ancient mythologies, is absurd. Demigods
were usually thought of as the offspring resulting from
sensualistic relations between all sorts of imaginary crea-
tures: the gods themselves were represented as consorting
with humans, and even with brutes, and fantastic creatures
of every kind were supposed to have inhabited the earth
as a consequence of such illicit relations. (The tragedies
of Euripides point up these facts more vividly, perhaps,
than any of the other works of Greek literature. The
Homeric epics also give us graphic pictures of the frailties
of the gods: they are even represented as actually engaging
in the battle before Troy and suffering the wounds of
battle, in the manner of ordinary soldiers. Plato, i t will
be recalled, objected strenuously to these tales of the frail-
ties and immoralities of the gods: The Divine, he insisted,
must never be thought of as the author of evil.) It is silly
to think that the Bible writers, surrounded as they were by
sensualistic and idolatrous pagan neighbors, could have
imagined an order of beings purely ethereal in nature and
benevolent in their ministry, as angels are represented to
be in Scripture, We therefore accept the teaching of the
Bible about angels and their nature and work, as divine
revelation,
(4) They are a class of beiqigs older tkaii m a n aiid
distiiict froiii ?van. They are not spirits or souls of the
righteous dead. In Heb, 12:22-23, “innumerable hosts of
angels” are clearly distinguished from “the general assembly
and church of the firstborn” and from “the spirits of just
men made perfect,” t h a t is, the righteous dead in their fully
I 13
 GENESIS
redeemed state, clothed in glory and honor and immor-
tality. (Cf. also Heb. 2:16, 1 Cor. 6:3, Matt, 18:10, Acts
12:15, Luke 1:19, etc.) The mention of the serpent in
Gen. 3 : 1 implies the fall of Satan before the fall of man.
In Gen. 2:1, “all the host of them” which God had created
is generally taken to include the angels. Man was evidently
the crowning achievement of God’s creativity, created after
the angelic host had been created, Angels are to be thought
of as sharing in some incomprehensible way, the time-
lessness of the heavenly realm, as distinct from the tempo-
rality of our natural world.
( 5 ) T h e y Possess siLperhaLmaii intelligence and power
(Psa. 103:20, 2 Pet. 2:11, Jude 9, 2 Thess. 1 : 7 ) . ( 6 )
T h e i r intelligence and Power, althozigk superhamar?, is rqot
w j e r n a t u r a l (infinite) (Job. 2 :6, Matt. 24: 36, 1 Pet.
1:12, Rev. 2O:l-3, 7 - 1 0 ) . God alone is infinite, eternal,
omniscient, timeless, without beginning or end. ( 7 ) In
tiiLmber t h e y are a great mziltitude (Dan. 7:10, Heb. 12:22,
Rev. 5 : 1 1 ) . ( 8 ) T h e y seem t o have organizatiorz, with
various ranks and endowments (1 Ki. 22:19; Matt, 26:53;
Eph. 2:2, 3:lO; 1 Thess. 4:16; Col. 1:16; Jude 9 ) . ( 9 )
T h e i r w o r k is t o act as ministers of God’s providence in
t h e world of nature and of m e n (Dan. 1 2 : l ; Luke 1 5 : l O ;
1 Tim. 5:21; Matt. 4 : l l ; Heb. 1:14; Matt. 13:39, 18:10,
25:31; Mark 8 : 3 8 ; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:10-12, etc.).
( 10) T h e angels were created innoceiit (Gen. 1:3 1 , Jude
6 ) . (11) M a n y of t h e m Preserved their origiiial iimo-
ccnce, and by mabroken obedience to God, attaiiied holiness
(Mark 8:38, Psa. 89:7, 1 Tim, 5 : 2 1 ) . ( 1 2 ) B a t others
fell f r o m their original state of iniiocence arid of fellmu-
ship with G o d (Job 4:18, 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6, 1 John 3 : 8 ,
Matt. 25:41, Rev, 12:7-12). ( 1 3 ) T h e angels who frll
f r o m their original state of innocence are wholly ronfirrrlid
in evil, that is, totally depraved (Matt. 6:13, John 8:44,
Matt. 25:41, 1 John 5:18-19, 2 Pet. 2:4, Rev. 20:1-.3,
etc.), The evil angels rebelled purely of thcir own \-oIitiim
14
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
and hence for them there is no plan, no hope, of salvation,
Man disobeyed as a consequence of yielding to temptation
(seduction) from without, and for him, therefore, God
could consistently plan and execute the Scheme of Re-
demption. ( 14) T h e leader of this #re-mundane rebellion
was av augel of superior attainments, 631 the name o f
Lircif er, probably an archangel, who deliberately chose t o
assert his will above the sovereignty of G o d , and w h o ,
tbroiigh the specious Plea of i d i m i f e d “personal liberty,”
persuaded soiiie of his kind t o embark 011 a cowse of open
warfare against God and all Good (Isa. 14:12-14, Ezek.
28:13-17, Luke 10:18, John 8:44, Rev. 12:7-10, etc.).
3. T h e M y s h y of Lawlessiiess (1 John 3:4, 5:17;
Rom. 4:15, 7:s; 2 Thess. 2:7). The Mystery of Lawless-
ness is the Mystery of Sin. Only a person who is utterly
spiritually blind will deny that sin i s a f a c t of our world.
All great Bible themes-redemption, atonement, justifica-
tion, remission, salvation, pardon, forgiveness, adoption,
reconciliation, regeneration, sanctification, immortalization
-all these have significance only in relation to the fact of
sin, Make no mistake about it-sin is ~tfact. Sin is not
just irratiouality as the “depth psychologists” would have
it; it is not just iminatvrity or just “missing the mark,”
as academic pundits would have it-not by any means!
S i n is depravity, it has always been, is now, and will always
be, open rebellion against God, Sin is the offspring of
human presumption and oftentimes is wilfully cultivated,
that is, sinners are sinners in most cases because they choose
to walk after their own lusts (2 Pet. 3:3). Those who
would “explain away” sin as “illusion of mortal mind,”
I would remind t h a t the “illusion,’y and the origin of it,
remain to be accounted for, Sin proceeds from the interior
life of man, from vincible ignorance, a perverted will, or
n seared conscience (1 Tim. 4:2) ; and the essential princi-
ple of sin is selfishness: there never was a sin committed
that was not the choice of self above God, of man’s right-
15
 GENESIS
eousness (his own way of doing things) above God’s right-
eousness (God’s way of doing things). (Cf. Matt. 3 : 1 J ,
6:33; Rom. 1:16-17, 9:30, 10:3; John 4:34.) T o do
things according to God’s way is to obey the moral law;
to do things contrary to God’s way is to flout the moral
law-this is lawlessness, A lawless world is a Godless world,
and vice versa.
The “mystery of lawlessness” is commonly designated the
“problem of evil,” both moral and physical, Apparently
all forms of evil descend upon human beings from one or
more of three sources: ( a ) from what a person does to
himself, (b) from what others do to him, and ( c ) from
the physical framework in which he is destined to live in
this present life. There is no doubt that a measure of
impenetrable mystery attaches to this problem, the prob-
lem especially of the origiii of sin and suffering and of the
persistence of the trernerzdons volume of sin and suffering
in our world. Cf. Job 11:7, chs. 38-41, also Isa. J5:8-9,
Rom. 1 1 :33-36: these passages clearly teach us that there
are aspects of the mystery which lie beyond the pale of
human understanding (Deut. 2 9 : 2 9 ) , Hence, we must
accept what God has revealed to us through His Spirit
(1 Cor. 2: 1 1 -1 6 ) concerning this mystery and its relevance
to human life and destiny. For if God has not revealed
what we need to know, we simply have no solution for the
deeper aspects of this problem. B u t God has revealed to
ZLS d l that we need to know, for our own good, and this
revelation is clearly set forth in Scripture, embracing the
following particulars:
( 1 ) . Sin bad its beginning in the free choice of a per-
son, zLn&gflzbenced from without, to rebel against the
sovereignty of God. This author will defend the thesis
anywhere, a t any time, that sin could not have originated
in any other way than in a personal choice to disobey the
moral law, just as crime originates only in the free choice
of a person to disobey the civil law. As far as our knowl-
16
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
edge goes, only persom are capable of making suck a choice:
indeed, the powers of self -consciousness and self -determina-
tion are the powers which constitute a person to be a
person, Subhuman entities (rocks, plants, trees, fishes,
birds, insects, beasts of the field)-all these are without
the potentiality of being either moral or immoral : literally,
they are amoipal, (We do not haul animals into court and
charge them with crimes.) Only persons are moral beings;
therefore, only persons are responsible for their deeds
(Rom, 3:20, 4:15, 5:13, 5:20, 7:7; Acts 17:30-31; Matt.
24:31-51; 1 Cor, 3:13; 2 Cor. 5 : l O ; Gal. 6:7; Heb. 2:2-
3; 2 Pet. 2:4; Rev, 2O:ll-15, 22:12). Hence, in attribut-
ing the origin of sin to a person, Scripture teaching is in
harmony with human experience and common sense.
( 2 ) , Personal beings are of three hinds (as affirmed iiz
Scriktim) , izaiizely, didize, aicgelic, and h u m a n . (a) The
divine Persons who make up the totality of the Godhead
are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16-
17, 28:19; 2 Cor, 13:14; 1 Pet. 1 : 2 ) , In the dim light of
the Old Testament revelation these Three were known as
God, the Word of God, and the Spirit of God (Gen. 1: 1-
3; Psa, 3 3 : 6 , 9; Rev. 19113; John 1:l-14; 1 John 1:1,
5 :7). (b) Angels, as we have noted, are represented in
Scripture to be a special order of celestial (ethereal) per-
sonal beings, superhuman in intelligence and power, who
serve as the ministers of God’s providence, (c) The human
being is described in Scripture (Gen. 2:7) as a body-spirit
unity, a person, “a living soul.” He is set apart as a species
(as person and personality) by his thought processes. These
are matters of human common sense and experience. Sin,
of course, is not t o be attributed to the Godhead who is
altogether holy (John 17:11, 2J; Heb. 4 : l J ; Rev. l J : 4 ) .
Therefow si17 i i z i t s t have oiriginated aifzong the aiigels or
amowg vzm.
( 3 ) , Accordiizg to the Bible, s i i i origiizated iii ihe $re-
niarridaiic rebellioii of the archangel h r i f er, who sought to

17
 GENESIS
break. away from the soueveigiity of God a i d t o set u p n
riud throne somewhere beyoiqd O Z I Y miverse. ( a ) The
Scriptures intimate that Lucifer, prior to his fall, was an
angel of superior rank and endowment: the name “Lucifer”
itself means “the shining one,” and in the Revised Version
is rendered “Day-star.” Cf. Isa. 14: 12-1 5 . Hebrew proph-
ecy runs in parallels: hence in this Scripture the f a t e of the
king of Babylon evidently is described as analogous t o the
fall of Lucifer. Cf. also Ezek. 28:13-14. Here the pro-
phetic parallel is between Lucifer and the king of Tyre.
“Anointed cherub” is a phrase designating an angel of high
official rank, undoubtedly an archangel. The descriptive
language which appears in these passages simply cannot be
applied to any human being, except by analogy, and that
only in a limited sense. ( 2 ) 1 Tim. 3:6, John 8:44. Cf.
these passages with Isa. 14:12-15 and Ezek. 28:13-14.
These statements could hardly have been made with refer-
ence t o earthly monarchs. It seems evident that orthodox
Christian scholarship is right in interpreting them as allud-
ing to the rebellion and fall of Lucifer. It seems, too, that
the archangel’s fall was caused by pride, jealousy and false
ambition; and that his appeal to his fellow creatures was
the specious plea of “personal liberty,” that is, for complete
freedom from the binding force of any kind of law--n
plea which has damned more souls than any other single lie.
(Liberty, it must be remembered, is izot license.) It is
quite possible that he influenced other angels with false
charges and lying accusations against God, as, for example,
that the Creator was a tyrant who imposed His wilI on
free creatures, etc., and that he exhorted them to follow
him in breaking away from all Divine restraint and in
setting up a rival government somewhere in the heavens.
It would seem that up to this time God had never revealed
His love to His angelic host; that they probably were aware
only of His power. Hence some of the angels were
prompted t o heed Satan’s lies and to follow him into open
18
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
rebellion; by far the greater number, however, remained
loyal to the Divine government, As Milligan writes: “How
pride got possession of Satan’s heart it may be difficult
for us to conceive, But it seems probable, from the state-
ment of Paul in First Timothy (3 : G ) , that it was in some
way owing to his elevation above those around him. H e
may once have been the archangel, superior even to Mi-
chael. But in an evil hour his eye was turned from the
Creator to himself as the highest, the most gifted, and the
most influential of all the creatures of God, His heart
swelled with pride; ambition took possession of his soul;
and rebellion was then seen in heaven. But justice and
judgment are the dwelling-place of God’s throne, Psa.
89:14. He reigns .in the midst of the most perfect right-
eousness, and no sin can be tolerated for a moment in His
presence. And hence H e had but to speak the word, and
Satan, with his rebel host that kept not their first estate,
was instantly cast out of heaven and bound in ‘eternal
chains under darkness to the judgment of the Great Day,’
Jude 6.”” (Cf. 2 Pet, 2:4, Matt, 2i:41, Luke 10:18, 1
Cor. 6 : 3 . )
( 4 ) . Afipareiztly Satail aiid his rebel host, hauiiag at-
fryzpted a direct eiicounter with those of their kiizd who
veiiiaiiied loyal to God, were cast out of Heaven, to be-
come waiiderers “to and fro in the earth” (Job 1:7). C‘r.
Ezek. 28:16, Isa. 14:1i, 2 Pet. 2:4, especially the words of
Jesus, in Luke 10:18 (the Logos was present, of cQurse,
when ,this incident occurred; hence, as Jesus, H e was recog-
nized by these evil spirits: cf, John 17: i ; Jas. 2 :19; Matt.
8:29; Mark 1:24, 5:7; Luke 4:34; Acts 19:lY). (This is
a notable instance in which the t r u t h about a given subject
cannot be obtained in its fulness short of taking into con-
sideration the teaching of t h e Bible as a whole.) The re-
bellion of these wicked angels was inexcusable from any
and every point of view. Eternal Justice forbade any plan
of salvation for them. Prior to their rebellion they had
19
 GENESIS
been in close personal fellowship with God; they had
known Him as their Creator and Ruler; they had been
fully aware of His wisdom and power; they must have
known that all being depended on Him for continuance.
Besides all this, they sinned purely of their own volition,
without having been influenced from any source outside
themselves. They were not seduced, as man was. They
decided of their own free will to enter upon a course of
sin, motivated by their own inordinate ambition. T h e y
became iia f a c t the first anarchists. For these reasons, and
possibly others unknown to us, their rebellion was inex-
cusable. Therefore, their moral state, as a result of this
complete rejection by their Creator, is one of total de-
pravity. They are “kept in everlasting bonds under dark-
ness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6 ) , “com-
mitted to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment”
( 2 Pet. 2 : 4 ) . What kind of “bonds,” and what kind of
“darkness”? Bonds of reprobation, undoubtedly, and the
darkness of implacable hatred and despair. Having realized
from the time of their fall, that they are irretrievably and
eternally lost, they are totally depraved. From the moment
of his fall, Lucifer became “Satan” or “the Devil,” the
chief of evil spirits. The word “Satan” is from the
Hebrew, and means “Adversary,” “Accuser,” “Enemy,”
etc. The Devil is an implacable and insatiable enemy of
God, man, and all Good.
( 5 ) . T h e last end for these wicked angels, and all their
ilk, including all wicked, neglectful, and ainf orgiueiq h u m a n
beirzgs, will be eternal segregation in hell. (1) Someone
may ask, Why did not God annihilate these evil angels
when they rebelled against Him? Of course, it would be
sheer presumption on our part to answer this question dog-
matically. There are certain intimations, however, which
may give us clues to a partial apprehension of this mystery.
Science, for example, teaches that God does not, and reflec-
tion leads us to believe that He would not, annihilate that
20
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
which H e has created, One of t h e first laws of nature is
that the total amount of energy (or matter) of the cosmos
is constant. Matter changes forin, but nothing of the
original total stock is lost in the process, Reason would
add, it seems to me, t h a t if God does not annihilate matter,
He surely will not annihilate spirit. As a matter of fact,
were He t o annihilate anything that shares personality with
Him, either angelic or human, H e would be acting in-
consistently, that is, in opposition to Himself. But to act
thus inconsistently is contrary to His nature as Deity;
hence, i t seems that the word “annihilation” is not in the
vocabulary of Heaven. Certainly there is every reason to
think t h a t a t the “times of restoration of all things, where-
of God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets’’ (Acts
3:21) this earth which we now inhabit will be renovated
rather than aizwibilated (Isa. 65:17, 6 6 2 2 ; 2 Pet. 3 : 1 - 1 3 ) .
I am reminded of a story which appears in one of the
published books of sermons by W. H. Book, longtime
Minister of the great Tabernacle Church of Christ, Co-
lumbus, Indiana. Book tells us that he was holding a
revival meeting in Hagerstown, Maryland, once upon a
time, and, as was the custom in earlier days, prior t o the
sermon each evening he spent a few minutes answering
questions t h a t individuals might see fit to put into a “query
box” a t the entrance to the meeting hall, One evening he
received a question which read substantially as follows: If
God is all-powerful, as you preachers say, and there is so
much evil in the world, as you say, and if the devil is the
source of this evil, as you also say, then why doesn’t God
kill the devil and put an end to all this sin and misery?
Brother Book read the question aloud, carefully, and then
answered: “I would say that God would not want to kill
the devil, because t h a t would leave too many orphans in
Hagerstown.” To this we would be justified in adding,
I think, that if God should kill the Devil, the large part
of the earth’s population would be orphaned. Despite the
21
 GENESIS
apparent flippancy of this answer (to the question equally
flippant), the fact remains t h a t it was in harmony with
the teaching of Jesus, who, on a certain occasion in answer
to the caviling Jews, blistered them with the statement:
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father it is your will to do” (John 8 : 4 4 ) ,
Hell, the penitentiary of the moral universe, was, accord-
ing to our Lord’s own statement, “prepared for the devil
and his angels”; as Chrysostom was wont to say, in the
early days of Christianity, Hell was prepared, not for men,
but for the devil and his angels, but if men go there, it
will be strictly because they cast themselves into it. The
eternal segregation of all the wicked, both angels and men,
in hell (Gehenna) will follow the Great Judgment. (Note
Matt. 8:29--“to torment us before the time”; also Matt.
25:31-46, esp. v. 41; John 5:28-29; Acts 17:30-31; 2
Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 20:11-15, etc.)
( 6 ) . T h e good angels, 012 the otheY haizd, aye reauavded
with ruerlastiizg hafifiiizess (blcssedrzess) aiid this corisists
i n beiiig with God, seeirig H i m “face to face,” sewing Hiin
aiid enjoyirig Hiin forever: c f . M a t t . 1 8 : l O . The good
angels are also called the elect angels (1 Tim. 5 : 2 1 ) . This
does not mean, of course, that their remaining faithful was
the result of their election; it means, rather, that their
election was the natural consequence of their fidelity. The
good angels are the executors of God’s judgments (Matt.
13:36-43, 16:27, 24:29-31, 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Jude
1 4 ) , and the ministers of His benevolence toward the re-
deemed (Heb. 1:14, 12:22; Luke 2:8-15). Accounts of
angelic ministrations, both of benevolence and of judgment,
occur repeatedly throughout the entire Bible. E.g., Gen.
16:7, 18:2, 2 2 : l l - 1 8 , 19:l-17, 28:12, 3 2 : l ; Exo. 3:2; Gal.
3:19; Exo. 14:19; Judg. 2 : l ; Num. 22:31; Josh. 5 : l j ;
Judg. 6 : l l - 1 2 , 13:2-21; 2 Sam. 25:16; 1 Ki. 19:5; 2 Ki.
6:17; Dan. 6:22, 7:lO; Zech. 2:3; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke
1:26-38, l : l l - 2 0 ; Matt. 2:13-20, 4:11, 2 8 : 2 - j ; Luke 2 : 8 -
22
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
1 7 ; Acts 1:9-11, f:19, 8:26, 12:6-9, 10:3, 27:23-24; Rev,
1 : 1 , 1:2, etc. Many authorities believe that the “Angel
of Jehovah” frequently mentioned in the Old Testainelit
Scriptures was the Logos Hiinself in pre-incarnate mani-
festations or theophanies (cf. Mic, 1:2, 1 Cor. 1O:l-4).
(7) To summarize: the Bible teaches explicitly as fol-
lows: (1) That the source of sin, of the entire burden of
sin which the human race has brought on itself (Rom.
3 : 2 3 ) , is the Devil (1 John 3 : 8 ) , ( 2 ) That the pedigree
of sin, therefore, is Satan, lust, sin, and finally death (Jas.
1 : 1 3 - 1 J ) , ( 3 ) That the wages of sin is death (Rom.
6 : 2 3 ) , not only physical death, the separation of the spirit
from the body and the consequent dissolution of the
physical frame (Gen. 2:16-17, 3:19, j:j, 4:33; John
19:30; Heb. 9 : 2 7 ) , but also spiritual death, the second
death, eternal separation from the Source of Life (2 Thess,
1:7-10; Rev. 20:14, 21:8, 2 : l l ) . Whatever else the word
“hell” may signify in Scripture, it does signify the loss of
God and of all Good (Matt, 2 5 ; 4 1 ) . Death, in whatever
form it may take, is in the world because sin is in the
world (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. j : 1 2 , 6:23, 7:14; 1 Cor.
15:21-26, 50-57; 2 Cor, 5:4; Heb. 9:27, etc.). (4) That
the’ Son of God was “manifested, that he might destroy
the works of the Devil” (1 John 3 : 8 , 3 : j ; Matt. 1:21;
John 1:29; Heb. 2:14-15, 9:28; 1 Cor. 1 5 : 3 , 20-26,
50-57). Redemption in Christ Jesus is complete redemp-
tion, t h a t is, redemption in body and soul and spirit (1
Thess. 5 : 2 3 ) , redemption both from the giiilt of sin (Ezek.
1 8 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) and from the coiiseq~eiicesof sin (Exo. 20:5-
6 ) . (Cf. Luke 1:68; Rom. 2:4-11, 8:18-25; Gal. 3 : 1 3 ;
Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9 : 1 2 ; Rev. 5 : 9 , 14:3-
4, etc,) As Jesus spoke to the hard-hearted and disbeliev-
ing in His own day, so He speaks to the neglectful, disobed-
ient, and wicked of every age, including the present one.
“Ye are of your father, the devil,” etc. (John 8 : 4 4 ) , and
“Ye will not come to me, t h a t ye may have life” (John
23
 GENESIS
5:40). There can be only one reason why men keep 071
living in sin: it is the fact that they will io do so (2 Pet.
3:9; Matt. 11:28; John 10:10, 11:25-26; Matt. 23:37;
Luke 1 3 : 3 4 ) .
I quote here the following statements by H. C. Christo-
pher, from his great work, now long out of print: “A
being that can r?ot ew must be infinite in his attributes.
Wherever there is finiteness, there is necessarily and un-
avoidably the possibility and capability of wrong-thinking
and wrong-doing. Absolute perfection inheres only in the
Infinite. Imperfection inheres in the finite, becmse they
are finite. Here lies the poteiztial origin of sin, the possibil-
ity of siizning being insepavable f w m , a i d inherent in,
f i d e beiizgs. . , . Angels knew nothing of the innate and
undeveloped powers and sentiments of their nature, and
were unconscious of the evil lurking deep below the sur-
face, like the germ in the seed, and awaiting only the
necessary influences and excitements to arouse the dormant
powers into activity. It may seem strange to talk of in-
fluences and exciting causes of developing sin in heaven,
among beings of whom all our conceptions embrace the
ideas of purity and happiness; yet sin first erupted in
heaven.”“
4. The Fact of Sin. It has been said that one might
frame an argument of sorts against the Deity of Jesus,
against the inspiration of the Scriptures, or against the need
for religion, but that it is impossible foip myone to sziccess-
fzilly deny the existeizce of sin. The universality of sin is
an ever-present fact. The consciousness of guilt breaks
forth in the literature of all peoples. Legalists, statesmen,
philosophers, and poets alike testify, with Pascal, that
accountable persons are unrighteous, “for each one tends
to himself, and the bent toward self is the beginning of
all disorder.” The consequences of sin-sickness, suffering,
death-are apparent on every hand. We can escape the
cyzsilt of sin, through the efficacy of the atoning blood of
24
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Christ, but none can avoid its coitseque.r;r.ces. Sin is here,
there, everywhere, and only the morally blind will deny
the fact. Nor do we obviate the fact of sin by resorting
to such meretricious terms as ccimmaturity,’y“irrationality,”
“missing the mark,” etc., to sugar-coat it.
F, The Adversary of Souls (John 8:42-47, Eph. 6:lO-
1 8 , 1 Pet, $ : 8 - 9 ) . The Bible teaches unequivocally that
there is a personal Devil: the doctrine runs throughout
Scripture from beginning to end. As the enemy of all
Good, Lucifer is presented in Scripture as Satan (Abaddon
in Hebrew, Apollyon in Greek) in the Old Testament:
(Rev. 9 : l l ; Job 26:6, 28:22; Prov. 1 5 : l l ; Psa. 8 8 : l l ) ; as
the Devil, in the New Testament, the chief of the evil
spirits (fallen angels, demons, 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6 ) . The
word ‘‘Satan’’ is of Hebrew origin, meaning “Adversary,”
“Accuser,” “Enemy,” etc.
That there is a persoizal Devil is evideizt from the f o l l w -
iizg Scriptures: ( 1 ) The testimony of Jesus (John 8:44,
12:31; Matt. 13:38-39, 25:41, 22:29-30: these statements
are too explicit to allow for the notion that in speaking
of angels and demons, Jesus was merely accommodating His
language to the Jewish traditions of His time) ; ( 2 ) the
testimony of the Apostles (1 John 3 : 8 ; Rev. 12:9, 20:2,’ 7,
10; 1 Pet, 5 : 8 ; 2 Pet. 4:4; 2 Cor. 4:4, 11:14; Eph. 2:2;
2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 1:2O) ; ( 3 ) the epithets by which he
is described, e.g., “the prince of this world” (John 14:30,
1 6 : 1 1 ) , “the god of this world” ( 2 Cor. 4 : 4 ) , “the prince
of the powers of the air” (Eph. 2 : 2 ) , “the prince of
demons” (Matt, 12:24) , “the tempter” (Matt. 4:3) , “the
adversary” (1 Pet. 5 : 8 ) , the “accuser” of the saints (Rev.
12:10, Job 1 : 6 - 1 2 ) , “the old serpent” (Rev. 1 2 : 9 ) , the
first liar and the first murderer (John 8:44) ; (4) the
terms (similes and metaphors) by which his activities are
described, as, e.g., a fowler (Psa. 124:7, 1 Tim. 3:7, 2 Tim.
2 : 2 6 ) , a sower of tares (Matt, 13:25, 3 9 ) , a wolf (John
10:12), a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5 : 8 ) , a serpent (Rev. 12:9,
25
 GENESIS
2 0 : 2 ) , a dragon (Rev. 1 6 : 1 3 ) . These terms all suggest
Satan’s total depravity, and his diabolical malice and
cunning.
T h e testimony of Scripture that there is a personal Devil
is corroborated b y h u m a n c o m m o n sense and reason. If
there is no personal Devil, then man must be held account-
able for all the evil in the world, and such a burden of
guilt would be overwhelming. Why is it more “absurd”
that a moral being should have sinned against God in past
ages, than that moral beings should sin against Him now,
as obviously they do? Belief in a personal devil is f a r more
reasonable than belief in a n irnpersonnl spirit of evil: as a
matter of fact, “impersonal spirit” is a contradiction in
itself, for spirit essentially is personality. Moreover, in
view of the fact that between man and the lowest forms
of life there are numberless graduations of being, why is
it thought incredible that between God and man there
should be ethereal creatures of higher than human intelli-
gence? One of the most ingenious devices the Devil em-
ploys in deceiving people is that of “sellingyy them the
lie that he does not actually exist. Let every intelligent
being beware this diabolical and totally destructive lie.
According to Biblical teaching, the history of m a n is but
the facade behind which Satan and his rebel host have
sought relentlessly, a i d with venomous hatred, to defeat
God’s eternal pzmpose and plan f o r His Creation. This un-
ceasing conflict, characterized by diabolical vindictiveness,
has continued through several phases as follows:
1. T h e first phase of a direct frolztal attack. It would
seem that, on the specious plea that God, in asserting His
sovereignty and establishing moral law, was proving Him-
self to be a tyrant, Satan persuaded some of the angelic host
to enlist under his banner. Their objective, apparently, was
to break away from all restraint: they were the first m-
archists. (Libertinism, the notion that every man should
be permitted to d o jzist ns he pleases, according to the teach-
26
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
ing of Aristippus of Cyrene in ancient times-to follow
his “natural impulses,” according to the more sophisticated
version, the credo of Rousscau and his so-called “progressive
education” disciples-the confusion of liberty with license,
is widespread in our time, But lawlessness is godlessness,
and vice versa,) Under Satan’s persuasion, his rebellious
cohorts had the effrontery to undertake a personal en-
counter with the celestial forces of good, The immediate
result was the expulsion of the rebels from their original
estate (“proper habitation”) (Luke 10:18, 2 Pet. 2:4,
Jude 6 ) . Having been unceremoniously cast out of
Heayen, Satan became “the god of this world,’’ t h a t is, of
the kingdom of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 1 6 : l l ; 2
Cor, 4:4; Eph. 2 : 2 ) . But-why did not God segregate
these rebel spirits in hell a t the time of their defection?
Why does He even to this day allow them to roam the
cosmos a t will, seeking whom they may devour (Job 1:6-7,
1 Pet. 5:8) ? Of course, we have no clear answer to this
question. It would seem, however, that the Divine plan
was t o permit these devils to demonstrate their true charac-
ter, their total depravity, that by so doing they would
prove themselves fit only for Hell, and in this manner
would vindicate the justice of God before all intelligences,
both angelic and human, of the entire cosmos (1 Cor. 6 : 3 ).
This may have been the reason why Satan was permitted
to appear in the presence of God to accuse the patriarch
Job (Job 1:6-12), and why he is permitted to continue
in his Satanic role as Accuser of the saints (Rev. 12:10),
It might be well to consider also that there is no evidence
that our Heavenly Father had, prior to Satan’s rebellion,
ever made any demonstration of His great love for His
creatures (that supreme demonstration, Supreme Sacrifice,
awaited the death o n the Cross of His Only Begotten Son) ;
t h a t only His eternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:20, Isa.
57:15) had as yet been revealed. At any rate, we have no
complete answer for this question (Deut. 29:29), probably
27
 GENESIS
because it is not our right, as creatures, to have it, or
because we could not comprehend the depth of this
mystery, even if some attempt were made to reveal it,
bcause of the inadequacy of human language to communi-
cate the ineffable. Be that as it may, we are told ex-
pressly that, although cast out of Heaven and doomed t o
walk up and down in the earth, the ultimate segregation
of these rebel angels will take place a t the end of our age
(aeon), that is, a t the termination of the Reign of Messiah
(1 Cor. 15:20-28, Phil. 2:5-11, Rev. 2 O : l O ) .
It would be well a t this point to take note of the cases
of denzomdogy reported in Scripture. That this was some-
thing more than insanity is obvious for several reasons, as
follows: (a) From such passages as Matt. 4:24, in which
“divers diseases” are clearly distinguished from “torments,”
and “those possessed with demons” from the “epileptic and
palsied.’’ (b) From the fact that these evil spirits in-
variably recognized, and explicitly confessed Jesus for what
H e was-the Eternal Logos (Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24, 3:11,
5:7; Luke 4:34; Acts 19:15; Jas. 2:19). These evil spirits
also confessed the presence and work of the Holy Spirit
in the personal ministry of the Apostles and their co-
laborers: evil cannot remain silent, but must speak out
the truth, in the presence of holiness (Acts 13:6-12, 16:16-
18, 19:13-19). (c) From the fact that these evil spirits
begged t o be confined (localized) in physical bodies, even
in bodies of swine, to escape some measure of their consum-
ing restlessness (“going to and fro in the earth and , , .
walking up and down in it,” Job 1:7, 1 Pet. 5:8; cf,
Matt. 8:28-33, Mark 5:lO-19). (d) From the fact that
they obeyed immediately when the Lord commanded, or
even just willed, them “to come out,” that is, exorcised
them (Matt. 4:24, 8:32; Mark 1:25-27, J:10-19; Luke
4:3 5 ) . Note that the Apostles, through their possession of
the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit’s powers and
graces (Acts 1:l-8, 2:l-4; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:21-23;
28
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Heb, 2: 3-4), also had this power of exorcism (Luke 9 : l I
Acts 16:18, 19:12), (e) From the fact of their admis-
sion that their ultimate destiny would be eternal segrega-
tion jn Hell with all their ilk, and their begging a t least
R temporary respite from the infliction of this just penalty
for their sins (Matt, 25:41; Matt. 8:29--“art thou
come hither to torment us before the time?” Mark 7:7-
ct
torment me not,”), V h y s h o d d not these evil spirits
have recognized Jcsirs f o r just who He was? Why should
thepi ?lot have recognized the working of t h e Spirit’s
power? H a d they not been with Jesws (as the Logos), and
with the Spirit, in eternity, prior to the creation of the
world? Had they not been cast out of Heaven along with
their leader, Safaii ( L d e 10:18), when t h e y had rebelled
against the Divine gouernnient? Why, then, should these
uarioids Scriptures be interpreted as describing forms of
ima?zity w h e n t h e y clearly indicate diabolism?
2. The second phase: the attack on the generic seed of
the W o m a n . ( I ) . O n seeing our first parents living in
complete happiness in Eden, Satan, thirsting for revenge,
set about to seduce them from their state of innocence,
and to mar-and, if possible, to destroy-the image of God
in which they had been created, Let us imagine a man
who has a neighbor whom he hates-and a hater is always
a murderer a t heart (1 John 3 : 1 5 ) ; this man knows he
cannot prevail in a personal encounter with this neighbor;
but the latter has a faithful old dog, long a protector of
the family and a cherished pet; so this would-be murderer
proceeds ‘to get revenge by stealing out under cover of
darkness and poisoning the animal. In like manner, Satan,
who dared not attempt a second frontal encounter with
God, made his way stealthily into Eden and exerted his
diabolical cunning on Adam and Eve. We all know the
sordid story, The Woman yielded t o the seductive voice
of the tempter, and the Man, apparently out of his love
for her, followed her into the transgression ( 2 Cor. 11:3,
29
 GENESIS
1 Tim. 2 : 14). Thus did Satan murder the whole human
race: by bringing sin into the world, he brought death,
“for that all sinned” (Rom. 5:12-13, 3:23, 6:23; John
8:44; Heb. 2:14-15, 9:27; Gen. 3:19, 5:J; Jas. 1313-15).
( 2 ) . No doubt the Devil gloated over that apparent
victory. Imagine his consternation, then, on hearing the
Divine pronouncement that the Seed of the Woman should
bruise the Old Serpent’s head (Gen. 3:14-15; Rom. 16:20),
that is, ultimately bringing to defeat his nefarious schemes.
May we not rightly suppose that Satan did not know what,
precisely, the word “seed” implied here (although he had
superhuman knowledge, he did not have omniscience), and
may well have interpreted it to designate the genus that
descended from the Woman (Gen. 3:20)? Setting out,
then, to frustrate what he thought to be the meaning of
this mysterious oracle, his first move was to impel the
Woman’s firstborn, Cain, to clobber his brother Abel to
death, in an act of jealous rage; and so the first crime was
committed in the very shadow of Eden, and i t was the
awful crime of fratricide (Gen. 4:l-8). Still and all, the
birth and naming of Seth (“substitute”) must have been
understood by the Devil to mean that the battle had just
been joined and there would be more to come. ( 3 ) . His
next move was a bold one. By fostering the intermarriage
of the pious Sethites (“sons of God,” that is, as belonging
to the Messianic Line) and the irreligious Cainites (“daugh-
ters of men,” Gen. 6:l-4)He brought about a condition
of universal wickedness (Gen. 6 : 5 ) : it always happens that
when the good mingles with the bad, on the level of the
bad, the whole becomes bad. Imagine Satan’s glee on hear-
ing God say, “I will destroy man,” etc. (Gen. 6 : 7 ) ; and
then imagine, if possible, his embittered frustration when
he heard God commanding Noah, “Make thee an ark of
gopher wood” (Gen. 6:14). The Flood came, and the
race was not destroyed, as Satan had planned, but was
30
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
rebuilt through righteous Noah and his progeny (Gen. 6:8-
10).
3. The third iihase: S a h d s way 011 the elect o f tbs Old
Covenant, t h e fleshly seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-
t h e Children of Israel (Matt, 8 : l l - 1 2 ) , (Election is
election to responsibilities, not to special privileges, except,
of course, oiily as respoiisibilities to God are in essence
privileges per se for all who love Him: Rom. 8:28, Matt,
11:29-30, 1 John 5:3,) (1) It was inevitable t h a t when
God called Abraham’s fleshly seed to become the temporary
custodians of the worship of t h e living and true God
(monotheism), Satan should be stirred again to every con-
ceivable effort to frustrate t h e fulfillment of the Abra-
hamic Promise (Gen. 12:l-3, 17:9-14, 17:19, 26:1-Y,
28:13-17; Exo. 2:24, 6:4, 19:5-6, 34:27-28; Lev. 2 6 : 9 ;
Deut. 5:1-Y, 9:9-11, 26:16-19, 29:10-13; Judg. 2-1; 1
Chron. 16:13-19; Jer. 31:31-34; Neh., ch. 9 ; Luke 1:72-
73; Acts 3:2Y, 7:51-53; Gal. 3:15-19), Hence, under the
very shadow of Sinai, while thunders and lightnings bespoke
the presence of God in communion with Moses atop the
holy mount, the people down below were incited to cast
and set up a golden bull (the symbol of t h e Cult of
Fertility, in which ritual prostitution played a leading
role) and worship it in the manner of the Egyptian orgies
with which they had once been all too familiar; and three
thousand paid the price of their idolatrous folly by death
on the spot (Exo., chs. 19, 24, 32; cf. Acts 2:37-42, 7:38-
4 1 ) . ( 2 ) Again, because of their oft-repeated acts of
rebellion against God a n d His servant Moses, of the entire
adult nation t h a t had crossed the Red Sea only two sur-
vived the forty years of wandering in the Wilderness, to
cross the Jordan under Joshua into the Promised Land.
These two were men of great faith, Caleb and Joshua
(Num, 13:6, 16, 30; 14:6, 24, 30; Josh. 14:6-15). All
t h e rest left only their bleaching bones behind-mute
memorials indeed of their gross unbelief. ( 3 ) Later, the
31
 GENESIS
Devil stirred u p the people to clamor for a king so that
they might ape the practices of their idolatrous neighbors.
Against the counsel of God through Samuel ( 1 Sam., ch.
8 ) , the people crowned Saul, who turned out to be a miser-
able failure. We all know the tragic accounts of the
apostasies, cruelties, wars, orgies, etc., of the royal courts
both in Samaria and in Jerusalem. Ultimately, in the very
face of God’s special messengers, the great Prophets, and
their counsels of individual righteousness and social justice,
and their warnings of the disaster that would befall the
nation for ignoring the God of their fathers and His moral
law (Jer. 18:5-12), the whole nation became corrupt,
vessels fit only for destruction, Then it was that Jeru-
salem was trodden down by the Gentiles (Samaria had
already fallen to the Assyrians), first by the Chaldeans
and finally by the Romans, and God permitted the in-
habitants to be carried off into the Captivity and finally
dispersed among all peoples of the then known world
(Jer., ch. 52; Isa. 63:lO-19; Neh., ch. 9; Matt. 23:37-38,
ch. 24; Mark, ch. 13; Luke 13:34-35, 19:41-44, ch. 21;
1 Pet. 1:lO-12). (Cf. especially Acts 7:51-53, Acts 2:23,
2:36, 3:14-21; Luke 23:13-25, Matt. 27:20-26; esp. the
horribly tragic implications-in the light of subsequent
history-of Matt. 27:25.) (4) Thus Satan’s conflict with
the Old Covenant elect came to an end in their Captivity
and Dispersion, that is to say, apparently in their forfeiture
of their Divine election and apparently in the frustration
of God’s Eternal Purpose. (Cf. Isa. 46:8-11.) (Review
here the gruesome story, as given us by Josephus, of the
two-year siege of Jerusalem by the Roman legions under
Vespasian and Titus, A.D. 68-70. We are told that the
streets of the city were ploughed up, and that literally not
one stone of the Temple was left upon another. Cf. the
prophetic testimony of Jesus: Matt. 24: 1-2, Mark 1 3 :1-2 ;
Luke 19:41-44, 21:5-6,) ( 5 ) Apparently Satan’s triumph
was complete. But only apparently! Because it was now
32
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
dawning on t h e Devil’s understanding that the oracular
utterance respecting the Seed of the Woman was to have
its fulfilment in a Person, in the Person to be titled Messiah,
Christos, Christ, The Anointed One. The numerous decla-
rations of the Prophets of old that the Coming One should
be of the Seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gal, 3: 1 6 ) ,
of the tribal lineage of Judah (Gen. 49:10, Num. 24:17,
Psa. 60:7, Rev. S : 5 ) , of the royal lineage of David (Isa,
1 1 : 1 - 5 , Ruth 4:21-22; 2 Sam, 7:12-16, 2 3 : l - S ; Psa. 89:3-
4, 89:34-37, 132:lO-18; Isa. 9:6-8, l l : l O , 55:3-4; Jer.
23:5-6; Amos 9 : l l ; Matt. 1 : 1 , 9 : 2 7 , 21:9, 22:41-42; Acts
2:25-36; Rev, 5 : 5 , 33:16) ; that this Coming One, whose
goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, should be
born of a virgin, in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic. S:2; Isa.
7:13-14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35) ; that He should
be the great Prophet “like unto’’ Moses. (Deut. 1 8 : 1 S-19;
Acts 3 : 19-26, 7:37) ; that among His numerous other
names He should be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isa. 9 : 6 ) ; that
H e should come from Edom with crimsoned garments
(Isa. 6 3 - l ) , and tread the winepress of the judgment of
God aloiie ( h a . 63:3; Matt. 26:36-46, 27:46) ; that He
should be the Supreme Sacrifice for the s i i i of the world
(Isa. $3:1-9, John 1:29, 1 Cor. 5:7) ; that He should be
raised up from the dead and crowned King of kings and
Lord of lords (Psa. 16:10, 24:7-10; Acts 2:22-32, 13:32-
37; 1 Cor. lS:1-20; 1 Tim. 6:13-16; Rev. 1 9 : l l - 1 6 ) ;
that He should be King-Priest forever “after the order of
Melchizedek” (Gen. 14:17-20; Psa. 1 l O : l - 4 ; Heb. 6:13-20,
7 : l - 3 , etc.). As this Messianic anthem swelled louder and
louder, attaining its full crescendo in the life and work of
John the Baptizer, the last of the School of the Prophets,
Satan began to realize a t long last that God planned, when
the fulness of the time should come, to invade the “king-
dom of this world” as Incarnate Deity in the Person of
The Anointed, and that the destiny of all intelligent crea-
33
 GENESIS
tures of the universe was to be entrusted to the determina-
tion of this Coming One, Messiah, Christ, In view of this
realization that God’s Remedial System was to be entrusted
for execution, not to the generic seed, nor to any particular
ethnic seed, of the Woman, but to a single Person, the
God-Man (Gal. 1 : 1 6 ) , the Seed of Woman exclusively
(Matt. 1318-25, Luke 1:26-38, Gal. 4 : 4 ) , there was but
one course for Satan to pursue, and that was t o await the
appearing of this Redeemer whose defeat he must en-
compass in some manner or himself suffer eternal segrega-
tion in Hell. This was precisely the course that Satan did
pursue: hence, the relative silence-the holy hush, one
might say-that characterized the interim between the
time of Malachi and that of John the Baptizer.
4. The fourth phase: that of the climactic struggle be-
tween Satan and Messiah, Christ Jesus. ( I ) The prophet
Isaiah had stated explicitly that God Himself would give
a sign (special proof) of Messiah’s appearance in the world:
this identifying sign was to be that a virgin should conceive
and bear a Son who should be named Immanuel (ha. 7: 14;
Matt. 1:23; Luke 2 : l l - l 2 , 2 : 3 4 ) . Hence, moved by such
mysterious portents as the Star in the heavens, the message
of the Angelic Choir (Luke 2 : 8 - 1 5 ) , the gathering a t the
Manger, the Visit of the Magi, etc., Satan’s first act was
to incite the cruel Herod to put the infant to death. But
God sent His angel to warn Joseph and Mary, and they
fled into Egypt with the Child, returning to Nazareth
only after Herod’s death (Matt. 2 : l - 2 3 ) . ( 2 ) After some
years of silence (Luke 2 : 5 2 ) , we see Jesus appearing before
John the Baptizer and requiring John to baptize Him.
Hence, the profound significance of the events which
occurred a t the Jordan: after Jesus had come up out of
the water, not only did the Holy Spirit anoint Him by
descending in a dovelike form upon Him, but the Father
Himself broke the stillness of centuries for the first time
since Sinai t o declare vocally, “This is my beloved Son, in
34
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11,
Luke 3:21-22). By these external acts the Holy Spirit
officially anointed (inducted) Jesus into His threefold
office of Prophet, Priest, and King (Psa. 2:l-9; Acts 4:26,
10;36-42), and the Heavenly Father officially introduced
Him to the world as His Only Begotten Son. This anoint-
ing (christ-ing, from chrio, literally, “smear,” “rub on,”
hence, “anoint”) by the Spirit and this avouching of His
Sonship by the Father left no room for Satan t o doubt that
this truly was Messiah. (Note also the identifying sign
given to the Herald, John, “upon whomsoever ye shall see
the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him,’’ etc., John
1:29-34.) These identifications were a direct challenge
to the Devil; as if God were saying to him, “This is He
about whom the prophets testified and whose advent the
world has long awaited: this is Messiah, my Only Begotten;
therefore, do your worst!”
(3) The Devil joined battle a t once, but in the Tempta-
tion which followed (Matt. 4:1-11), he came out “second
best.” But-did he give up after this first failure? By
no means. Although it was necessary for angels to minister
to the well-nigh exhausted Victor, the Devil departed from
Him only “for a season” (Luke 4:13). H e returned later
in the most powerful temptation of all, in the Garden of
Gethsemane. This time it was the temptation to yield to
the elemental burden of sheer loneliness (aloneness) : to the
“tragic sense of life” itself. This-Unamuno has called
it the supreme example of “the agony of Christianity”-
it was necessary for Jesus to experience (Heb. 4: 1 5 ) . This
He did experience in the Garden, and the soul agony was
so poignant t h a t great drops of His blood mingled with
His sweat, to sanctify the ground under the old olive trees
(Matt, 26:36-46, Mark 14:32-43, Luke 22:39-46). How-
ever, when Jesus emerged from Gethsemane, H e had won
the victory-over Himself, that is, over His human nature,
and over His arch-enemy. Now H e was fully prepared for
31
 GENESIS
the Cross. Satan now realized, probably for the first time,
that H e could never win in a moral conflict with the
Source of all good; under great urgency, therefore, he set
about preparing the way for the use of his most potent
weapon, death (Heb. 2:14-15), that is, to hasten the
murder of the Son of God.
’ ( 4 ) The Tragedy of the Ages is now pushed vehemently

to its denouement, as Satan’s hatred builds up into dia-

bolical rage. The Lord of glory is betrayed by one of His
own disciples (Luke 2 2 : 3 ) , and denied by another (Matt.
26:69-7J). H e is rejected by His own people (John 1:
l l ) , and sentenced to death by their ecclesiastical bigots,
who then pressure Pilate, the Roman governor, albeit
against his better judgment, into ratifying the death penalty
(Acts 3 : 1 3 - 1 5 , 7:51-53; Matt. 27:lS-26; Mark 14:53-65,
15:6-15; Luke 22:66-71, 23:13-25; John 19:l-16; Acts
2 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) . One cannot help wondering: Why such vin-
dictiveness toward one who-in the eyes of those who
were inflicting such cruelties upon Him-was merely an
unlearned Galilean peasant? Think of the treacherous kiss,
the scourging, the spitting on Him, the crowning (lacera-
tion) with thorns, the humiliation of dying between two
common criminals, of having ignorant Roman (pagan)
soldiers gamble for the few garments that were His sole
material possessions; and *finally, the death itself, by cruci-
fixion, the most cruel and ignominious form of death that
the inhumanity of man ever invented (the driving of
spikes through the living quivering flesh of His hands and
His feet) ! Could all this have been inspired by any other
source than sheer diabolical malice? What had this humble
Personage done to evoke such fiendish mental and physical
cruelties? Did not the Holy Spirit provide the certain
answer to this question through the Apostle Peter: He
“went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed
of the devil: for God was with him” (Acts 1 0 : 3 8 ) ? It
is an unfailing characteristic of Evil that its hatred of the
36
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Good assumes diabolical proportions sooner or later, More-
over, is it not ironical t h a t Satan, of course unwittingly,
was himself bringing about the literal fulfilment of the
prophetic picture of t h e Suffering Servant of Jehovah
(Isa., ch. 5 3) ? Misunderstood, misrepresented, rejected,
betrayed, denied, deserted, and seemingly abandoned by the
Father Himself, truly this Sacrifice on the Cross-the in-
nocent for the guilty-was treading the winepress alone!
Even the Heavenly Father, out of sheer empathy, we are
constrained to think, turned His face away momentarily
from this awful spectacle on Calvary (Matt. 2 7 : 4 6 ) .
Satan and his minions must have howled with fiendish
glee, when Jesus, on the Cross, said, “Father, into thy hands
I commend m y spirit” (John 19:30, Luke 2 3 : 4 6 ) , and
then bowed His head and “gave up the ghost,” To Satan,
this meant that Messiah was dead, that at long last God’s
redemptive Plan was forever frustrated.
( 5 ) Imagine, then, Satan’s utter consternation-imagine
how his gloating was turned into cursing-on hearing the
pronouncement of the angel a t the Empty Tomb, “He is
not here, for he is risen, even as he said” (Matt. 28:6-7).
Yes, Satan and his rebel host reckoned they had achieved
complete victory when Jesus died on the Cross. But they
had reckoned without the working of God’s almighty
Power which he wrought when He raised up Jesus from
the dead and set Him at His own right hand in the
heavenly places, and crowned Him the Acting Sovereign
of the universe (Eph. 1:15-23; Matt. 28-18; Col. 1:16-18;
Acts 2:22-36; Phil, 2:5-11; 1 Tim, 6:13-16; 1 Cor. 15:20-
2 8 ) . The Empty Tomb was the final and incontrovertible
proof to Satan and his minions that, although physical
death was the limit of diabolical power, it was but the
occasioii for a demonstration of the strength of God’s
Almighty Arm; that the death and resurrection of Jesus-
true Messiah-was but an integral part of the Cosmic
Plan of God to “bring to nought him t h a t had the power
37
 GENESIS
of death, that is, the devil , . . and deliver all them who
through fear of death were all th&r lifetime subject to
bondage” (Heb. 2:9-16). It meant that the ultimate end
of the Divine Plan is nothing short of the death of death
itself (Gen. 3:19, Isa. 46:8-11, Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:22-23,
1 Cor. 15:20-28, 2 Cor. 5:1-10). (Note also the teaching
of Jesus, Matt. 12:38-40. That is to say, as Jonah came
forth from the belly of the big fish in due time, so did
our Lord come forth from the bowels of the earth: in a
word, the one and only divine sign, vouchsafed all sub-
sequent generations, of the ultimate defeat of Evil and the
ultimate triumph of the Good, is the resurrection of the
Prince of Life from Joseph’s tomb. Christianity is the only
faith known to mankind that has in it an empty tomb-
the Empty Tomb; and this Tomb is empty because death
had no dominion over the One whose body occupied it
for the brief period of its entombment (Acts 2:22-36).
This Empty Tomb is the cvozu~iiiig glory of Christianity.)
It is significant, is it not, that the affirmation of the
Resurrection was the fundamental motif of the apostolic
testimony (Acts 2:32, 10:40-42, 17:30-31, 26:19-23; Rom.
1:4, 10:9-10, etc.) ?
5 . The fifth n r d final phnse: Satan’s Inst-ditch efforts to
bring d o w n t o Hell (with the lost of all ages) the S P i Y i t i i d
wed of Abrnhnm, God’s elect of the New Covet?nnt (Gal.
3:23-29).
(1 ) The Resurrection of Jesus, the Advent of the Holy
Spirit, and the Incorporation of the Church were the events
in the development of the Remedial System which made
inevitable the ultimate defeat of Satan and his ilk ( I John
3 : 8 , Rev. 20:7-IO). Today with all the desperation of a
lost spirit engaged in a hopeless cause, he makes war on
the Church. Realizing full well that he faces eternal
segregation in Hell (Matt. 25:41), he seeks only to drag
down the human race, and especially the Church, into the
pit with him, Every true saint of God will realize as he
38
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
presses 011 toward the final victory of faith (1 John 5 :4-?),
that
Satan ever watches round him,
Seeks to find the weakest part,
And in moments most unheeded,
Quiclrly throws his fiery dart.
Eph, 6:12--“our wrestling is not against flesh and blood,
but against the principalities, against the powers , .
against the spiritual hosts of wiclredness in heavenly places.”
God’s Eternal Purpose, t h a t which He purposed in Christ
Jesus, was t h a t “unto the principalities and powers in the
heavenly places might be made known through the church
the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:8-12). ( 2 ) NO
doubt all Christians are subject to temptation by these un-
seen evil personalities who roam our cosmos, No doubt
the wicked angels influence us to sinful impulses by the
power of suggestion (telepathy) which is inherent in all
types of personality, to which we surrender unless we keep
ourselves clad in “the whole armor of God” (Eph. 6:l-20).
By subtle suggestions, no doubt, they seek to entice us into
sin, to cause us to injure ourselves in body and spirit, and
finally to plunge us into perdition (Psa. 91:3, Luke 8:12,
John 13:2, 1 Cor. 7:5,2 Cor. 2:9-11, 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Tim.
2:2G, Eph. 4:27, Jas. 4:7,1 John 3:7-8), Note what God
jroinisess His saints, however, with respect t o the wiles of
these evil spirits (1 Cor. 10:13, 2 Pet. 2:9, 1 John 1 : 8 - 1 0 ) .
That we may be reminded continually of our Heavenly
Father’s guidance and protection, Jesus teaches us to pray:
“and bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the
evil one” (Matt. 6 :13). As in the case of Job, diabolical
malignity is always circumscribed by the power of the
Almighty (Job 1: 12, 2:G) ; the devils could not even
plunge into a herd of swine without the Savior’s permis-
sion (Matt. 8:28-34), ( 3 ) What ?iieaiis shall t h e saiiifs
ein/)lo31 to mist the wiles of tkc Devil? The most effec-
39
 GENESIS
tive means of resisting temptation are these: knowledge
of the Word of God and the ability to use it with discrim-
ination (it is noteworthy that Jesus, both in the Wilder-
ness and in the Garden, relied on the Word and Will of
God: Matt. 4:1-11, 26:34-44; cf. Eph. 6:16, Heb. 4:12,
Isa. 49:2, Hos. 6 : 5 ) ; meditation and prayer (Matt. 4 : l - 2 ,
Luke 2 2 : 3 9 - 4 6 ) ; the faithful keeping of the Lord’s ap-
pointments (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 11:23-30, Heb. 10:23-25).
6. The vindication o f God’s Absolute Justice (including
His Love), impugned by the presumptuous lies of Satan
nizd his cohorts, will be the fundamental objective of the
Last Judgment.
What shall be the final outcome of this age-long conflict
between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil? The
Scripture answer to this question is explicit, positive, and
challenging: the outcome will be, through the redemptive
work of Christ and the sanctifying activity of the Holy
Spirit, nothing short of the complete triumph of God (1
John 3:7-10, 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 2 : 7 - 1 0 ) .
On this matter the Bible leaves us in no doubt whatever.
It teaches expressly as follows: ( 1 ) There will be a final
universal Judgment in which d l intelligent beings will
stand before the Righteous Judge, to render a final ac-
counting of their stewardship (Matt. 1 1 :20-24, 12:41-
42, 25:31-46; Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 2:16; 2 Cor. 5:lO;
Heb. 9:27-28; Rev. 20:11-15). Both the just and the
unjust (the saved and the lost) shall have part in the
general resurrection which must, of course, precede the
Judgment (John 5:28-29, 11:24; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 13:22;
1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 2 0 : 1 3 ) . This Last
Judgment is an event to be expected in the future (Acts
24:25, Heb. 1 0 : 2 7 ) ; an event that is t o follow physical
death (Heb. 9:27) , an event that is to be attended by all
humanity (Matt. 12:41-42, 16:27, 25:31-32; Acts 17:30-
3 1 ; 2 Cor. 5 : IO) , an event for which those who are evil are
“reserved” (2 Pet. 2:4-10; Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). (2)
40
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
At this Last Judgwzeiit, the J u d g e will be the Lord Jesus
Christ, At His first Advent, the Only Begotten came as
“the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”
(John 1:29, Isa, 53:7, Acts 8:32, 1 Cor, 5:7, 1 Pet. 1:19,
Rev. 5:6, 8 , 12, 13; Rev, 6:1), At His second Advent,
H e will come as “the Judge o f the living and the dead” ,
(Acts 10:42; Matt, 3:12, 7:22-23, 16:27, 25:31; Luke
22:30; John 5:22-29; Rom. 2:16, 14:9-12; 2 Cor. 5 : l O ) .
Though God is t h e Judge of all (Heb. 12:23) , yet His
judicial activity is exercised through Christ, both in the
present state of things and a t the Last Day (John 5:22;
Matt. 19:28, 25:31-46, 28:18; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor. 15:20-
28; 2 Cor. 5:lO; Phil. 2:7-11; Rev. 3:21). Christ will
appear in the Judgment in His threefold capacity. As
Prophet, H e will reveal the Father to His saints in glory
(John 16:25, 17:24-26); as High Priest, H e will present .
His saints before t h e Throne as an elect race, a redeemed
people, a purchased possession (1 Pet, 2:9) ; as King, H e
will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17: 3 1 ) .
(3) The subjects of the Last Judgiizeiit will be the eiitiiv
hziman race, aiid the evil angels: d l himaiiity, each person
possessed of a body reunited with spirit, the dead having
been raised, and the living having been changed (1 Thess.
4:16-17; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; Matt. 25:31-33; Rev. 20:12-
13) ; #be evil aiigels (2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6 ) , the good angels
appearing only as attendants and ministers of the Right-
eous Judge (Matt. 13:39-42, 24:31, 25:31; 2 Thess, 1:7-
10; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim, 2:10). (4) The desigii of the
Last Ji~dgiizent,in the E t e w a l Piirfiose awd Plaii of God,
is to be “the ~cvclafionof the righteous jindgmenf of God.”
That is, not the ascei?taiiiiizeiit of t h e moral character of
those appearing for judgment, but t h e revelatioii of God’s
righteousness, justice, aiid holiness. The notion t h a t God
will line all men up in rows and look them over, as in a
military inspection, to ascertain their moral standing, is
absurd, Our moral standing is known to God fully every
41
 GENESIS
moment of our lives (Psa. 139:7-10; Job 26:6, 28:lO;
Prov. 15:3; Jer. 23:23-24; Acts 17:24-28; Heb. 4:13).
Judgment will be, rather, the full and complete revelation
of God’s righteousness to all intelligent creatures, both
angels and men. Thus the saints will be presented in the
judgment clad in the fine linen of righteousness (Rev.
19: 8-14), their sins having been covered by the atoning
blood of Christ, forgiven and forgotten, put away from
them forever (Psa. 103:12, Jer. 31:34, Heb. 8:12), that
is, clothed in glory and honor and incorruption, the habili-
ments of eternal redemption (Rom. 2:7, Heb. 9:12). It?
their inailif estation, t h e iiqef fable greatness of God’s love,
inercy, and snlvntion will be f u l l y disclosed t o all His
ci~eati~res.The lost will be presented in the Judgment as
they really are, that is, in all the realism of their neglect,
rebelliousness, and iniquity. Even their secret sins will be
broiight to light and revealed to the whole intelligent crea-
tion. For the first time, perhaps, in the presence of In-
finite Holiness, they will come to realize the enormity of
their sinful lives, and the corresponding awfulness of their
loss of God and Heaven; and the result will be weeping
and wailing and gnashing of teeth (of remorse, despair,
and possibly rage occasioned by their utter frustration:
Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:IO, 22:13, 24:I1, 25:30; Luke
13:28; Rev. 6:16-17). This final demonstration will be
sufficient to prove to all intelligent creatures that Satan’s
charges against God have, from the beginning, been false
and malicious, proceeding from a totally depraved being.
T h e reszilt will be the complete vindication of God Al-
mighty, w h i c h is, in itself, the Primary design of the Last
Jzidginenf (1 Cor. 6:2-3). This final demonstration of
God’s righteousness and of His love, in the salvation of His
saints through the Atonement which He Himself provided
to sustain the majesty of His law (Rom. 3:21-26), will
be sufficient of itself to condemn Satan and all his kind.
( I ) Following the Great Jadgment, both the saved and
42
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
the lost will enter u j o i i their resjective eteriial states of
beiiig (Matt, 25:34, 41; John 5:29; Rev. 2O:ll-15, 2 1 : l -
8 ) . As Jesus has so clearly stated, between t h e two classes
there will be “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 1 6 : 2 6 ) , that is,
the verdict will be final (Rev. 22:11, cf. Job 1 4 : l - 4 ) ,
In all likelihood, this judgment will be one of self-examina-
tion and self -determination: individual conscience, con-
fronted by absolute Holiness (Perfection: Matt. 5 :48, Heb.
6: 1) will send each person to his own proper “place,” as
)

in the case of Judas (Acts 1 : 2 ~-the ) “place” determined

by his own moral effort in this present probationary life.
For the redeemed, this final state will be t h a t of Union
with God (the Beatific Vision), the union of the human
mind with the Mind of God in knowledge and the union
of the human will with the Will of God in love (1 Cor,
13:9-13; 1 John 1 : l - 4 , 4 : 7 - 2 1 ) . For the lost, the final
state will be that of the complete loss of God and all
Good ( 2 Thess, 1 : 7 - l o ) , Scripturally designated the second
death (Rev. 2:11, 20:6, 14; 21:8; cf. Matt. 10:28, 23:33,
25:30, 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Rom. 6 : 2 3 ) . (Cf, Matt.
25:46. Note the use of the word “eternal” here: whatever
it ineaiis with referelice to the tinieless state of the re-
deeiued, it m e a m the saine uiith refereiice t o the tiiizeless
state of the lost. “Eternity” in Scripture seems t o mean,
not stretched-out time, but tinzelessness: it is impossible for
the mind, in man’s present state, to grasp t h e significance
of this term.) It should be noted here, finally, that the
success of the Divine Cosmic Plan is t o be determined, not
by the number who are saved, but by the greatness of the
salvation t h a t God will ultimately reveal in His saints.
Should only one man appear in the Judgment, clothed in
glory and honor and incorruption (Rom. 2 : 7 ) , redeemed in
spirit and soul and body (Rom. 8 :23, 1 Thess. 5 : 2 3 ) , this
one example will prove to be so indescribably glorious as to
be sufficient to vindicate Divine Justice and Love (Isa.
4 6 : 9 - 1 1 ) . (Love is, of course, an essential aspect of justice:
43
 GENESIS
otherwise an Atonement would not have been necessary.
As a noted preacher once said, A God who is all love would
be an unjust God. This points up the fallacy-and the
folly-of the various cults of “Universalism.”)
7. Diabolism has existed i M ull ages. (1 ) This is evident
from the divine anathemas on such practices as idolatry
(worship of graven images, of the heavenly bodies-sun,
moon, stars); worship of animals and birds and insects,
even of the human reproductive organs (phallic worship) ;
sorcery, divination, augury, necromancy, in fact, all kinds
of occultism, (These are overlapping terms, of course: cf.
“consulting with familiar spirits,” that is, through spirit-
mediums, fortune-tellers, etc.) (Exo. 20:4-6, 22:20; Lev.
19:4, 2 6 : l ; Deut. 4:15-19, 4:23-24, 7:25-26, 27:15; 2
Chron. 1 1 : l J ; h a . 97:7, l l J : 4 ; Isa. 42:7; Jer. 1O:ll; 1
Cor. 8:4, 10:14; 1 John 5:21.) ( 2 ) The Cult of Fertility
which flourished throughout the pagan world in ancient
times, included the worship of the “Earth-Mother’’ (Terra
Mater) the essential feature of which was ritual prostitu-
tioM (on the theory of imitative magic, namely, that
human physical coition enhanced the fertility of the
fields) ; pbdlic worship, that is veneration of the images
of the male reproductive organs (this was practised in
Athens in the time of the so-called “Enlightenment,” that
is, the age of Socrates and Plato) ; and the worship of ani-
mals noted for their prolificness, such as the bull, the snake,
the he-goat, etc. In the days of the Empire, the Roman
Saturnalia was a period of complete public sexual promis-
cuity. (Cf. Exo. 32:7-8, Lev. 17:7, and especially Rom.
1:18-32.) ( 3 ) Note also Biblical references to deuil-
worship (Deut. 12:31, 32:17; Psa. 106:37; 2 Ki. 17:17;
Ezek. 16:20-22; 1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 9 : 2 0 ) . ( 4 ) Note that
as a rule these occult practices incurred the death penalty
(by stoning) under the Mosaic Law (Exo. 22:18; Lev.
19:31, 20:6, 2 7 ; Deut. 18:9-14; Jer. 27:9-10). King
Saul’s downfall was complete when he consorted with the
44
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Witch of Endor (1 Sam. 1$ :23, also ch. 2 8 ) . ( $ ) In the
New Testament these are sins that will damn the soul
(Luke 36:27-31; Acts 15:20, 17:29; 1 Cor, 8 : l - 6 , 10:14,
10:19-22; Gal, 5:20; 1 John $ : 2 1 ; Rev, 21:8, 2 2 : 1 $ ) ,
(Note the quacks who tried to emulate the methods of the
Apostles: Acts 8:9-13, 18:24, 13:6-12, 19:13-20.) These
practices were all manifestations of diabolism in Bible
times. It is well-known that devil-worship has been a
feature of some kinds of so-called ccspiritualism” even in
modern times. (Suggestions: Research into the history of
the Kabala, and into the history of “black magic” in the
Middle Ages. Read the Pkarsalia, Book VI, by the Latin
poet Lucan, for a vivid account of these horrible practices
in Thessaly; also the tragedy by Euripides, the Bacchae,
for a study of “orgiastic religion.” Look into contempo-
rary voodooism as practised by West Indian Negroes.
“Hexing” belongs in this category: see Hardy’s novel, The
Retwn of the Native, for the “hexing” of Eustacia Vye,
who had acquired the reputation in the community of
being a witch.)
8 , Does diabolism exist in 0111.‘ day? It is difficult to
think otherwise, else how could we account for the follow-
ing: (1) the monstrous inhuman careers of a Hitler, a
Goebels, a Stalin, and their ilk; ( 2 ) the vicious sex crimes,
thrill murders, senseless ltillings, horrible forms of torture
(e.g., flaying a prisoner of war alive and making the skin
into a lampshade), the cruelties of concentration camps,
racism and attempted genocide, the “brain-washing” of
captives taken in battle, etc.; ( 3 ) the prevalence of or-
ganized cults devoted exclusively to the spread of atheism.
(This is something new in t h e world: ethnic groups-no
matter how primitive-have uniformly recognized, in some
way, their dependence on a higher Power or Powers.) (4)
The rise of the totalitarian state, This also is new. Abso-
lutisms have always existed: t h a t is, systems in which abso-
lute social and political control is exercised by the monarch,
45
 GENESIS
(Matt. 22:30, cf. Acts 2 3 : 8 ) . The theory that the doc-
trine of angels was just a bit of folklore to which Jesus
accommodated Himself impugns both His wisdom and His
goodness. He spoke so frequently of angels that his con-
temporaries did suppose Him to be accepting it as a matter
of fact that angels do exist. If this belief was just a
popular superstition without any foundation in fact, and
Jesus knew this to be the case, surely His veracity-an
essential aspect of His sinlessness-would have impelled
H i m to correct it. However, if H e did not know any
better, did not know that this was nothing but folklore,
then His wisdom was deficient and H e can be rightly
accused of propagating error. But Jesus came to bring
Truth, not error (John 14:6, 8:31-32). Again, if Paul
had known that there are no such beings as angels, he
could not have been honest in contenting himself with
forbidding the Colossians to worship them (Col. 2:18) :
he would have been compelled to deny their existence as
he denied the existence of heathen gods (1 Cor. 8 :4). As
Christopher writes: “The Inspired Volume not only assures
us that this material world, and the living beings upon it,
were created by God; that matter, as also the beings which
are formed of it, owe their existence to Him directly; but
it also reveals the existence of another order of beings, who
inhabit a world invisible t o us, who constitute a distinct
category of intelligent creatures, and who, as a world,
.
form an integral part of the universe. . . The generic
.
name of a ~ g e lis given to this order of spirit beings. . .
We conceive of them as beings very high in the scale of
creation, possessing powers similar to those of man, but
far transcending his in every particular. They are classi-
fied in the Christian Scriptures as ‘Thrones, Dominions,
Principalities, and Powers,’ names indicative of rank, glory,
and majesty. ))’’
2. The doctrine is reasonable. It is entirely reasonable
to believe that there is a class of beings between man and
48
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
God, celestial, ethereal, unlimited by any sense of space or
time, in view of the many gradations that are known to
exist between man and the lower forms of life. Again,
practically a1 heathen mythologies have their inferior
deities and demigods. Mythology has its origin in tradi-
tion, and tradition, as a rule, in some original fact. “Every
counterfeit must have its genuine.” Hence the existence
of lesser deities in all heathen polytheisms, and the disposi-
tion of men everywhere to believe in beings superior to
themselves and inferior to the Supreme Being, is a pre-
sumptive argument in favor of the existence of angels.
Again, the entire Christian world accepts t h e doctrine of
immortality. If there is a spiritual entity in man that
lives on after the death of the body, why should it be
thought unreasonable that God created spirits without
physical bodies? While in Scripture angels appear with
bodies, it is evident t h a t these were not physical bodies,
inasmuch as they could make themselves visible and then
vanish from human sight, and it is in the sense that they
do not possess physical bodies that we speak of them as
being incorporeal. But this experience does not suggest
doubt as to the reality of their bodies: it simply intimates
that their bodies are not composed of gross matter (cf.
1 Cor. 15 : 4 7 - 4 9 ) , Jesus appeared to the Eleven on several
occasions after His resurrection and then vanished from
their presence (Mark 16:12-14, Luke 24:13-31, 36-43; John
2 0: 19-2 6, 2 1 :1- 1 4 ) , and though He possessed the same
individuality as before His death, it is evident t h a t His
body had undergone an important change of texture (Luke
24 : 3 9 -40) , (Indeed on occasion He vanished from human
sight even while in His human body: Luke 4:30, John
10:39.) Moreover, t h e fact that in some cases in the
Bible record, angels are represented as appearing in human
form is evidence not that they really did have this external
form, but, rather, that i i i e i i of old thought they did. Had
they actually possessed physical bodies they could hardly
49
 GENESIS
have vanished from human sight as they often did. We
must remember that “all flesh is not the same flesh,” and
that there is not only such a thing as a natural body, but
that there is also such a thing as a spiritual body ( 1 Cor.
1 5 :39-44).
3 . Finally, the doctrine of angels is spiritually constrzic-
t h e , in that it helps to build us up in the most holy faith.
(1 ) I t affords n barrier against inaterialisrut. Materialism,
indeed secularism of all kinds, deadens spiritual sensibilities.
This present world has a charm which the physical nature
of man finds hard to resist. It is easy to put wealth, world
honor, pleasure, or business first, and to forget the “things
that abide,” such as faith, hope, love, piety, and spirituality.
In the past century our schools have been invaded by a
materialistic philosophy which has deadened man’s concepts
of spiritual realities. We have developed a class of teachers
who, like the Sadducees of old, “say that there is no
resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit” (Acts 23 : 8 ) . They
teach that “matter” (or energy) is the irreducible of all
forms of being, that when the human body returns t o the
dust personality is annihilated. Man, they say, is simply
an aggregate of protons and electrons; hence, that when
the body dies everything human dies with it. This teach-
ing has deadened the convictions of the modern ministry
and has all but destroyed the evangelistic spirit of both
pulpit and pew. It has rendered people, generally, in-
different to divine things. We need to emphasize anew
the ideas of soul, spirit, angel, personal devil, personal God,
etc. When the church loses sight of the meditative and
the spiritual (call it ‘‘mystical” if you wish), the church
will die of dry rot. ( 2 ) I t strengthens o w faith in God’s
protecting care. One of the blessings of adoption enjoyed
by the Christian is heavenly protection. Knowing that a
host of these ethereal creatures are constantly keeping
watch over the “heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14), he is
encouraged to press on “toward the goal unto the prize
50
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14)
What was written aforetime with reference to the Son of
God, applies equally with reference to all t h e saints: “He
will give his angels charge over thee,” etc. (Psa. 91 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) ,
Jesus tells us expressly t h a t even little children are re-
cipients of angelic care and protection (Matt. 1 8 : l O ) . It
is a source of much comfort to the Christian to accept this
statement in childlike faith, believing, in the words of
John Milton, that
“Millions of spiritual creatures walk t h e earth,
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep.”
( 3 ) Whole-healpied acceptaizce of this d o c t r i m will help
us iia the sfribggle agaiizst sin. It is a constant source of
strength to know that these divine messengers-minister-
ing spirits-are ever near a t hand to sustain us if we mani-
fest courage to remain true in the face of severe tempta-
tions (Matt, 4:11). Truly, in running the Christian race,
we are constantly surrounded by “so great a cloud of
witnesses” (Heb. 1 2 : 1 - 2 ) , unseen and unheard, yet strong
in grace and mighty in power! (Cf. Rom. 8:37-39, Cor.
10:13).
REVIEW QUESTIONS O N PART ELEVEN
1. What are the two general kinds of evil?
2 , Criticize the popular notion that suffering is a direct
Divine infliction of punishment for a personal sin or
course of sin. What truth does the Book of Job con-
tribute to the evaluation of this notion?
3 . Criticize the view that all evil is illusory.
4. Criticize the view t h a t evil is incomplete good.
5 . Criticize the notion that evil is needed as a contrast to
the good.
6. Discuss the disciplinary character of suffering,
7. What is the teaching of the Bible with regard to the
origin of sin?
j1
 GENESIS
8 . Is sin possible of any other form of being than that
that of a person? Explain your answer.
9. Show how ordinary human experience supports the
view that sin had to originate in the act of a person.
IO. Who, according to Biblical teaching, was the person
who committed the first sin? What was his motive?
11. How does the Christian doctrine of Atonement rec-
oncile the antinomy between God’s omnipotence and
His goodness? ’
12. Summarize briefly the Biblical teaching about the
nature and the work of angels.
13. What is the significance of the Biblical teaching with
respect to good and evil angels?
14. Explain what is meant by “the mystery of lawlessness.”
15, State the pedigree of sin as given in James 1:13-15?
16. Whom does Jesus explicitly identify as the first liar
and the first murderer?
17. What is the proper distinction between liberty and
license?
18. Who were the first anarchists in our cosmos?
19. Can anyone consistently deny the existence of sin in
the world?
20. What powers specify the person to be a moral and
hence responsible being?
2 1. Relate immaturity, irrationality, and depravity. To
what extent, would you say, do these terms differ in
meaning, if they differ at all?
22. What do we mean when we say that angels are in-
corporeal beings? O n the other hand, are they bodi-
less? Explain your answer.
23. Explain the teaching of Jesus in Matt. 22:23-30 with
respect to the nature of angels.
24. Does the Bible support the notion that angels are glori-
fied spirits of deceased saints? Explain.
52
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
25, What Scriptures may be cited to prove t h a t angels are
created beings?
26. What Scriptures may be cited to show t h a t angels,
though superhuman, are limited in intelligence and
power?
27. What does the Bible have to say about their number?
28, List several incidents in which angels are represented
as playing important roles in Scripture.
29. What does the Bible specifically state to be t h e work
of angels?
30. What is the essential principle of sin?
31. What was the first phase of the Satanic rebellion
against God? What was the result of i t ?
32. Who was Satan originally and what apparently was his
office?
3 3 . In what role does Satan appear in the story of Job?
34. What do we mean when we say t h a t the evil angels
are totally depipaved? What Scripture phrases prove
this to be true?
3 j . What did God permit Satan t o do to Job? What re-
striction did He impose on Satan?
36. Give reasons for believing t h a t Satan is a person.
37, What are some of the names given Satan in the Bible?
What are some of t h e terms used to describe his role
as the enemy of all good?
3 8 . Should we hold God responsible for suffering and
death? If not, why not?
39. By what specific term does the Apostle Peter describe
Satan’s activity in human affairs?
40, What is t h e import of the Apostle Paul’s designation
of Satan as “prince of the powers of the air,” and “the
god of this world”?
41. What is the limit of Satan’s power?
42. What shall be the ultimate reward enjoyed by the
good angels?
53

I- _-
 GENESIS
43, Distinguish between the guilt of sin and the come-
qziences of sin. In what two Scriptures do we find
this distinction indicated?
44. Show that the Biblical doctrine of Hell is entirely
reasonable.
45. What truths are to be derived from the cases of demon-
ology recorded in the Bible?
46. What was the second phase of Satan’s war on God?
47. Explain why it was possible for God to extend mercy
to the first human sinners, but not possible for Him
to extend mercy to Satan and his rebels,
48. What did Satan do to bring about universal wicked-
ness in the age before the Flood?
49. What was the third phase of Satan’s war on God?
50. In this connection, what was the special significance
of the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament?
51. What was the fourth phase of Satan’s war on God?
52. In relation to this conflict what was the special sig-
nificance of the scene a t the Jordan immediately
following Jesus’ baptism?
5 3 . When did the anointing of Jesus take place and what
did it signify?
54. What was the direct challenge implicit in the Father’s
avouching of the Sonship of Jesus immediately follow-
ing the latter’s baptism?
55. In what climactic event did the conflict between
Messiah and Satan terminate?
56. What was the significance of the Resurrection of
Christ in relation to Satan’s ultimate destiny?
57. What special significance has the Resurrection in the
Christian System as a whole?
58. How does Jesus relate the Old Testament story of
Jonah to the fact of His own resurrection from the
dead?
59. What is the fifth and final phase of Satan’s war on
God ?
54
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
60, By what methods do these evil spirits influence human-
kind in our day?
61, What has God promised His saints with respect to the
wiles of these evil spirits?
62, What special means shall the saints employ to resist
the wiles of the Devil?
63, What is t o be the final outcome of this Satanic re-
bellion against God?
64, State the Biblical doctrine of the Last Judgment. Who
will be the Judge a t the Last Judgment? What classes
will be present for the Judgment?
6J. What shall be the essential character of this Last Judg-
ment? What is the apparent import of the Apostle’s
declaration that the saints shall judge angels (1 Cor.
6:3) ?
66. In what sense will the Last Judgment be the vindica-
tion of the Justice and Love of God?
67. What shall be the respective destinies of the saved and
the lost following the, Judgment?
68. What is the significance of the word eteriial as used by
Jesus in Matt, 25:46 with reference to the destinies of
both the saved and the lost?
69, What are the evidences that diabolism has existed in
all ages?
70. What are the evidences that diabolism exists in our
day?
71. Give some reasons, aside from Biblical teaching, for
accepting the existence and activity of angels as facts.
72. On what grounds do we say that the doctrine of angels
is reasonable?
73. O n what grounds do we affirm the doctrine to be
spiritually constructive?
74. What is meant by heavenly protection and how do
angels figure in it?
55
 GENESIS
7J. What does Jesus teach about angels and little children?
76. What practical values derive from wholehearted ac-
ceptance of Biblical teaching about the work of the
angels? And Biblical teaching as well concerning the
cosmic conflict between the forces of good and the
forces of evil?
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL DATA
I ) Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Rrligion,
p. 259. (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1940).
') Deharbe's Catechism, trans. from the German by Fan-
der, p. 94. (Catholic Publication Society, New York,
1876).
') D. Elton Trueblood, Philosopby of Religion, p. 237.
(Harper, New York, 195 7 ) .
") L. P. Jacks, Religious Foz~ndatioiis,edited by Rufus M.
Jones, p. 105. (Macmillan, New York, 1923).
') Whittaker Chambers, Wit~iess,pp. 797, 798. (Random
House, New York, 1952).
'') Wm. Robinson, The Devil and God, pp. 70-72.
(Abindgon-Cokesbury, New York and Nashville,
1945).
') Samuel M. Thompson, ,A Moderii Philosophy of Rc-
ligion, pp. 507-508. (Regnery, Chicago, 1955).
') W. Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites:
FamlameMtal I~istitz~tiorzs,p. 62. (Appleton, New York,
1889).
") Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systen9atic Theology, One-
Volume Edition, p. 443. (Judson Press, Philadelphia,
1907).
*') Robert Milligan, Scheme of Redemption, Revised Edi-
tion, pp. 44-45, fn. (Christian Publishing Company,
St. Louis).
") H. C. Christopher, The Remedial System, p. 12. A
great book, but long out of print.
") Christopher, ibicl., p. 29.
56
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Samuel M. Thompson (MPR, FO7-508) : “A world
free of evil would have to be a world which contained
nothing capable of evil. A world without natural evil
would be a world without t h e use of one thing by
another for its existence; and this, it seems, would be
a world without change. Considering the problem,
however, primarily with respect to moral evil, we can
imagine this condition fulfilled in two different ways.
A world may contain nothing capable of moral evil
because there is nothing in it capable of acting on its
own initiative. Such a world would contain nothing
which had reached t h e stage where morally responsible
action is possible. The beings existing in such a world
would be neither morally good nor morally evil; they
would be unmoral [amoral]. The other sense in
which we may conceive something incapable of moral
evil is in the sense that it is perfectly good. A world
which contained moral agents all of whom were in-
capable of doing wrong, or were able to refrain from
doing wrong and did so refrain, would be a world free
of evil. These are the two alternatives to the conten-
tion, which we are here defending, t h a t a world which
contains free agents is a world which contains evil
but t h a t the existence of such a world is good. It
seeins quite plain t h a t a world in which free agents are
included is in some significant sense a higher existence
than one in which free choice would be impossible.
The theistic solution of the problem of evil, as against
those who see the very possibility of evil as something
itself evil, can be summed u p in this: Not eueiz God
cui? love u piikjet. It goes without saying t h a t no
puppet, however complicated may be the motions
through which it is put, can love.”
:I. :I. b: *
57
 GENESIS
(The late Dorothy L. Sayers was an Oxford profes-
sor, a brilliant literateur, author of the well-known
Lord Peter Wimsey (detective) stories, and withal a
profound Christian believer. The following excerpt is
taken from the text, Introduction to Religious Philo-
sopby, pp. 11-12, by Geddes MacGregor. Published
by Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1959.)
“The only letter I ever want to address to average
people is one that says: Why don’t you take the trouble
to find out what is Christianity and what isn’t? Why,
when you can bestir yourself to learn technical terms
about electricity, won’t you do as much for theology
before you begin to argue ?
Why do you never read either the ancient or the
modern authorities in the subject, but take your infor-
mation for the most part from biologists and physicists
who have picked it up as inaccurately as yourselves?
Why do you accept mildewed old heresies as bold and
constructive contributions to modern thought when
any handbook on Church History would tell you
where they came from?
Why do you complain that the proposition that God
is three-in-one is obscure and mystical and yet acqui-
esce meekly in the physicist’s fundamental formula,
‘2P-PQ equals IH over 2 Pi where I equals the square
root of minus 1,’ when you know quite well that the
square root of minus 1 is paradoxical and Pi is in-
calculable ?
What makes you suppose that the expression ‘God
drdains’ is narrow and bigoted whereas the expressions
‘nature provides’ or ‘science demands’ are objective
statements of fact?
You would be ashamed to know as little about in-
ternal combustion as you do about beliefs. I admit
that you can practise Christianity without knowing
much about theology, just as you can drive a car
58
 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
without understanding internal combustion. But if
something breaks down in the car, you humbly go to
the man who understands the works, whereas if some-
thing goes wrong with religion you merely throw t h e
creed away and tell the theologian he is a liar.
Why do you want a letter from me telling you
about God? You will never bother to check up on it
and find out whether I am giving you a personal opin-
ion or the Church’s doctrine. Go away and do some
work. Yours very sincerely, Dorothy L. Sayers.”
:t. :t. ;t. :k

“Just as the account of creation in Genesis has been

able to communicate the majesty of God the Creator
within every cosmology from Ptolemy to Einstein
precisely because it is not a blow-by-blow account of
the origin of the cosmos but a dramatic dialogue tran-
scending all world views, so the apocalyptic setting of
the Sermon on the Mount and of the call to disciple-
ship, ‘Follow me!’ grounds the summons of Jesus in
the absolute character of God and of his demands upon
us. We may answer No to the summons, but answer
we must.”
-Jaroslav Pelikan, art., “Theologian and Thinker”
(tribute to Dr. Schweitzer) , S U ~ U Y ~ Review,
U~J
Sept. 25, 196j.

59
 PART TWELVE:
THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL O N EARTH
(Gen. 3:l-8)
1. The Generations of the Heavens m d of the Earth.
We need to recall here briefly the significance of this
phrase. The term “generations” (toledotb) in the various
passages in which it occurs in Genesis (cf. Gen. 5 : 1 , 6:9,
lO:l, ll:lO, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 37:2), refers in-
disputably, not to that which precedes it, but to that which
follows it, in the text. In a word, it is not recapitulative,
but introductory. Hence, there is no reason to assume that
the phrase, as used in Gen. 2:4, is any exception to This rule.
As Green writes (UBG, 11,12) : “Accordingly this title
.
. . must announce as the subject of the section which it
introduces, not an account of the way in which the heaven
and the earth were themselves brought into being, but an
account of the offspring of heaven and earth; in other
words, of man who is the child of both worlds, his body
formed of the dust of the earth, his soul of heavenly origin,
inbreathed by God Himself. And so the sections proceed
regularly.” (That is, first, Gen. 1:1, then 2:4, then 5:1,
6:9, etc., each referring uniformly to what follows and
not to what goes before.)
2. The Drama of the Genesis of S i n a i d Suffering. (Sin
is moral evil; suffering is Physical or “natural” evil.) We
have now learned (Part XI) that, according to Biblical
teaching, the first sin occurred, not in Paradise, but in
Heaven itself, in the insurrection of Satan and his rebel
angels against the Sovereignty of God. In the third chapter
of Genesis we have the account of the beginning of evil
on the earth. From this account we learn the following:
(1) that the actors in this supreme Tragedy of Human-
kind were four, namely, the Man, the Woman, the Serpent,
and the Devil; (2) that the Man and the Woman were
originally innocent ( i ~prior
. ~ to the birth of conscience in
them), and that in this original state they were surrounded
60
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
with all things necessary to their growth in holiness and
the good life; ( 3 ) t h a t they fell from this state of inno-
cence-how long after their creation (attainment of rea-
son?) we are not informed; ( 4 ) t h a t they were led to
disobey God by the seductive appeals of a creature desig-
nated the serpent; (5) t h a t the Woman was the first to
take the plunge into sin and its consequences, and t h a t the
Man, partially through affection for his fallen bride, de-
liberately followed her into the transgression (Gen. 3 :6,
cf. 1 Tim. 2 : 1 4 ) . (Let us keep in mind always what is
probably t h e most fundamental rule of Biblical interpreta-
tion, namely, t h a t this account, like any other segment of
Scripture, can be understood fully only in the light of the
whole of Biblical teaching.) Undoubtedly the most sig-
nificant truth for us t h a t is embodied in this narrative is
the fact that in the story of Adam and Eve and their en-
counter with the forces of evil-and the tragic conse-
quences stemming therefrom-we have the prototype of
what happens in the life of every human being on attain-
ing the age of responsibility (“accountability,” “discre-
tion”). (Cf. Rom. 3 : 9 , 23; also John 1:29-note the
import of the singular form, “sin,” as used here.)
We surely have here a dramatization of what had to be
a historical event, t h a t is, an event that had to take pluce
it? our space-i%ize world, in the appearance (emergence?)
of the first boii?o sapiens. That is t o say, there had to be
an awuremss of wrong, originating in practical reason and
manifesting itself in the chiding of conscience, somewhere,
a t some time, in a human pair-male and female; other-
wise, man would never have gotten out of the jungle. N o
evolution theory obviates this truth. Moreover, it seems
obvious that some kind of correlation must exist between
the awakeiiing of conscience in man and his attainment of
holiness, even though the nature and design of this correla-
tion is, and probably always will be, inscrutable.
3 . Hiiiizaii N u f i t r e . It should be noted t h a t we use t h e
61 V
 GENESIS
word “Man” here generically, that is, as referring to every
individual (both male and female) of the species (“kind”)
known as mankind or humankind. (Note the word “kind”
as used in Gen. 1 :12, 21, 2 4 ) . What is man? As Alex-
ander Pope has written-
Know then thyself; presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind is man.
And the Psalmist exclaims: “What is man, that thou art
mindful of him?” (Psa. 8:4). What is man? What is
human nature? I read today, in some texts on scientific
problems, that human nature is cbunging. Obviously, if
human nature changes, it will no longer be buman nature.
What, then, is human nature per se? The clearest answer
to this question that I have ever come upon is in the great
Old Testament commentary of the distinguished Jewish
writer, Moses Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon, who lived
A.D. 11 3 1-1204) , Maimonides writes, concerning Gen.
I :26, “Let us make man in our image” (tselem),as follows
(GI?, 14) : “The term signifies ‘the specific form’ of map,
viz., his intellectual perception, and does not refer to his
. .
‘figure’ or ‘shape.’ . As mao’s distinction consists in a
property which no other creature on earth possesses, viz.,
intellectual perception, in the exercise of which he does not
employ his senses, nor move his hand or his foot, this per-
ception has been compared-though only apparently, not
in truth-to the Divine ,perception, which requires no
organ. O n this account, i.e., on account of the
e intellect with which.man has been endowed, he is
said t q have been made in the form and likeness of the
Almighty, but far from it be the,notion that the Supreme
Being is corporeal, having a material form.” As we have
noted heretofore, in our study of Genesis 2:7, man is a
body-mind or body-spirit unity, that is, in scientific terms,
a psychosomatic unity, a “living soul.” This is precisely
what we mean by human nature throughout this text. (See
62
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
our presentation of the Christian doctrine of immortality,
in Volume One of our Textbook on Genesis.) As Maimon-
ides explains so clearly, however, it is only in his interior
life, based on his intellection, that man can be said truly to
be the “image” and “lilieness” of his Creator.
4. Aspects of Huiwaii Nature. These may be described
as follows: (1) Racial. The Bible teaches that the entire
human race has descended from a single pair (Gen. 1:27,
2:7, 2:22, 3:20, 9:19; Acts 17:26; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor.
1 7 :21-22), This teaching is corroborated by evidence:
(a) froin history, i.e., that the history of the race, of all
ethnic groups in both hemispheres, points to a common
origin (“cradle”) in southwestern Asia; (b) from phi-
lology, which points up a common origin of all the more
important languages of both the past and the present; (c)
from physiology, namely, the essential identity of all races
in cranial, osteological, and dental characteristics; the fer-
tility of unions among individuals of the most diverse
human types, and the continued fertility of the offspring
of such unions; (d) from psychology, that is, the existence
of common mental, social, and moral characteristics in all
peoples. Graves (HCD, 7 8 ) : “Men are homogeneous, a
genetic bond binds the race, the law of heredity everywhere
prevails.” Goldenweiser (Antb., 32) : “What the anthro-

’ pologist finds is man to whom nothing human is foreign:

all t h e fuiidaiizental twits of the psychic ?nuke-up of m a n
anywhere are present everywhere.” (Evolutionists are gen-
erally agreed, I think, t h a t insofar as it can be determined

It a t present in the development of their theory, there has

been only one biological “progression” culminating in
ho7?zo sapieiis.) T o this I should like to add, some evolu-
tionists to the contrary notwithstanding, that as things now
stand there is no available body of evidence a t hand
sufficient to justify the view that if mankind were t o dis-
appear from the face of the earth, there is any process of
change now in operation by which another homo sapiens
63
 GENESIS
might be ccevolved,” however long the animal kingdom
might continue to exist. In our day, evolutionists are
prone to avoid this issue by taking the position that bio-
logical evolution has given way to what they call “psycho-
logical” evolution as a result of the obtrusion of m&’s
mental powers into the ongoing of the process. (The
Scriptures know nothing, of course, of hypothetical “pre-
Adamic” families or tribes, nor for that matter do the
scientists.)
(2) Biparfife. Man’s nature is a fusion of the two
forms of being known to us, the spiritual and the material.
H e consists of “body” and “spirit,” and the union of the
two elements makes of him a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7; Job
27:3, 32:8, 33:4; Eccl. 12:7; Zech, 12:1), Schleiermacher
(CG, 2:487): “We think of the spirit as soul, only when
in the body, so that we cannot speak of an immortality of
the soul, in the proper sense, without bodily life.” Godet
(BS): “From the point of view of Holy Scripture, man is
a composite being made up of two elements of opposite
nature and origin. He is, as to his body, formed out of
the dust of the earth; but in his body there exists a breath
of life due to the inspiration of God Himself. ‘God,’ says
the ancient book, Genesis, ‘formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.’
The nature of the being which resulted from the combina-
tion of these two elements is described by the expression,
‘a living soul’; and thus, continues Genesis, ‘man became
a living soul’-words which were reproduced by Paul
almost literally (1 Cor. 1 5 : 4 ~ ) . We see that this expres-
sion, ‘living soul,’ is not applied to the breath of God
considered in itself and separate from the body, but that
it describes man in his entirety, n s the result of the union
of the two contrxxed elements.” Someone has said:
“Through my body I ani put in relation with nature
below me; through my soul, with men, my equals, around
me; through my spirit, with God above me.” A. A. Hodge
64
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
(PL, 2 2 1 ) : “By soul we inem only one thing, /.e., an
incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. T ~ Uwe
S never speak
of the sotils of angels. They are purc spirits, having no
bodies,” (1 m u s t reject this last statement. God alone is
pure Spirit [Johii 4:241, ‘I find 1-10 intimation in Scrip-
ture dint any creatures, either angels or men, are purc
spirits. Angels are represented Biblically as presenting
theniselves to men as ministering spirits [with reference to
their function, Heb. 1 : 141 but in some such attenuated
)

forin of energy-matter ns tiiakes diem sense-perceptible to

those to whom they manifest themselves.) T ~ LitE is t h a t
when Scripture writers wish to describe the completc
constitution of the human being, they place side by side
the three terms-body, soul, and spirit; e.g., 1 Tliess. 5:23,
Heb. 4: 12-notwithstanding tlie essential duality of man’s
nature +
(3) Prrsonal, Man was created “in the image” of God,
Gen. 1:26-27. In what sense? ( a ) In some sort of
/ibysirnl or .~ize/nphysicalsense? Surely not, because God
is Spirit (John 4:24), It is hardly legitimate to bring in
anthropomorphic expressions, as e.g., Gen. 3 : 8 , 6: 6 , 11: 7 ,
18:1, and Exo. 33:20-23, to prove that God is in some
sense corporeal, One of t h e great problems of revelation
has ever been t h a t of clothing divine thought in terms
intelligible to man; hence, throughout Scripture, God is
represented of tentimes ns possessing certain physical fea-
tures of a m a n , or of thinking aiid nctiiig as m a n would
think or act under similar circumstances. These are forms
of communication adapted to man’s ability to receive and
t o understand. (b) In n iizoral sense, as indicating boliims?
Obviously not, Holiness is a state achieved by tlie exercise
of the 1i~1ni:iiiwill in obedience t o God’s law (cf. Matt.
3 : 1 5 ) . God is infinitely holy in the sense t h a t He never
deviates froin His own Will; being in Himself t h e Source
of all truth, He conforms thereto precisely under all cir-
cumstances, Holiness is literally c o m ~ ~ l e t e n e s s&fection.
,
6J
 GENESIS
In his primitive state, man was innocent rather than holy,
that is, He existed without any actual awareness of the
possibility of illicit knowledge and no actual knowledge of
sin as a matter of personal experience. Innocence is largely
a state of passivity, of untried childhood, we might well
say; but holiness is active, not passive; it is the exercise of
the human will as God would have it done, in obedience
to His will. ( c ) In a personal sense, obviously. When God
is said to have created man “in his own image,” I under-
stand this to mean that he endowed the creature with the
essential properties of personality, viz. , self-consciousness
and self -determination. He endowed the corporeal form
which was constituted of “the dust of the ground” (energy-
matter) with the “breath of life,” i.e., the powers, priv-
ileges, and responsibilities t h a t attach to a person solely
because h e is a person. That part of the human being
which is “dust” (matter) is simply the outer shell, “the
earthly house of our tabernacle” (2 Cor. 5 : l ) . The real
man, however, the creature who thinks and feels and wills
-the inner man (Eph. 3:16, 2 Cor. 4 : 1 6 ) , not just the
life principle, but the rational as well, hence rgtiomal life
-was inbreathed by the Divine Spirit from His very own
essence; hence, as Aristotle has said, reason is the spark of
the Divine in man. Through the endowments of person-
ality m a n is qualified and divinely ordained to be the lord
tenant of the earth (Gen. 1:28-30, Psa. 8 ) . (Thinking of
God in the likeness of our inner selves is not prohibited in
Scripture; thinking of God in terms of external things is
prohibited (Exo. 20:4-6). Again, the test of the morality
and of the nobility of a culture is b o w it treats that which
is created in t h e image of God, that is, the person as such.)
( 4 ) Social. Man was intended for society (Gen. 2:18).
By ability, inclination, affection, interdependence and
actual need, man is a social being: or, as Aristotle put it,
“Man is by nature a political animal,” that is, a dweller in
a polis (the name by which the ancient Greek city-state
66
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
was known) . Realizing this inherent characteristic of
man’s nature, soon after creating the Man, God created
the Woman and brought her unto the Man as a helper
meet for his needs (Gen. 2:21-25), Thus the conjugal
union became, and continues t o be, the basis of both
domestic and civil society. (5) Moipal, t h a t is, having the
power of choice and hence subject t o the Divine law and
accountable for every voluntary act that is not in harmony
with that law and its ordaining Will. This power of
choice is, at the same time, the source of his potentiality
of attaining holiness. (6) I n general, man’s nature is
clearly indicated by his outreaches as manifested through-
out his history. These are the intellectual (quest for
t r u t h ) , the esthetic (quest for beauty), the social (quest
for order), and the religious (quest for wholeness or holi-
ness), The moral outreach is, of course, intrinsic to all
these facets of human interest and activity. As Cassirer
has written (EOM, 6 8 ) , man is to be defined specifically,
not by any inherent principle which constitutes his meta-
physical essence, nor by any empirically discerned set of
biological instincts, but by his works, that is, the products
of his specific impulsion to think and to live in terms of
symbols, This specific propensity t o symbolify, unknown
to the lower orders, is the source of his language, art, myth,
and ritual, the facets of his culture. Hence, says Cassirer,
man is not to be defined precisely as an animal rationale,
but as an aiiiwal syiizboliciim (p. 2 6 ) .
S. TJge Serpeni.
“Now tJge serkeiit was m o w subtle t h a n any beast of
the field which Jehovah God bad made” (Gen. 3 : l a ) .
( I ) Is the serpent mentioned here to be thought of as
a creature of myth, allegory, fable, or folklore (of “supra-
history,” to use the “neo-orthodox” t e r m ) ? O r was this
a literal serpent as we now see and know serpentkind? The
etymology of the original Herbrew term (nachasJ3) has
67
 GENESIS
been the subject of a great deal of tortuous speculation.
The word has been variously translated as signifying such
ideas as echiss,yy ‘‘creep,yy“pierce,” “shine” (with reference
probably t o its glossy appearance), etc. (Note in Isa.
27: 1 the distinction of the “swift” or ccfleeingyyserpent
from the “crooked” or “winding” serpent. Note also that
in Eccl. 10 :11 the term certainly suggests “babbler.”)
( 2 ) Writers of the modern critical school take the position,
of course, that this was not an actual serpent a t all. One
theory is that it was the personification of “the instinct
that impels man to emerge from the condition of child-
hood.” Another view is that it symbolizes “the animal
principle” in man (cf. the Id of Freudian psychology).
Adam Clarke (CG, 4 4 ff.) pursues the etymology of the
world through a maze of possible connotations, finally
arriving at the ingenious notion that the creature was a
member of the primitive family, possibly an ape or orang-
outang. Or, again, was this creature a symbol of sex
(again, cf. the Freudian libido)? Not so, says Cornfeld
(AtD, 16) , because “primitive man did not sublimate his
instinct with such symbols.” (For various uses of 7zackasrls,
see Exo. 4:3, 7:15; Num. 21:6, 7, 9 ; Deut. 8 : 1 5 ; 2 Ki.
18:4; Job 26:13; Psa. 58.4, 140:3; Prov. 23:32, 30:19;
Eccl. 10:8, 1 1 ; Isa. 14:29, 27:1, 65:25; Jer. 8:17, 46:22;
Amos 5:19, 9 : 3 ; Mic. 7:17). Aldo J. Tos (Roman
Catholic) writes (ABOT, 59, 6 0 ) : “Symbolism and an-
thropomorphism are the media by which the author teaches
the theology of the temptation and fall of Adam and Eve
in Gn 3 , 1 - 1 3 . ” Again: “The ‘serpent’ is used as a symbol
of man’s ancient foe. Hebrew writers will later call him
Satan, ‘the adversary.’ Christian belief is that he is a fallen
angel: ‘And he laid hold on the dragon, the ancient serpent,
who is the devil and Satan . . .’ (Apocalypse 20, 2 ) . The
presentation shows him as a cunning being who exercises his
rational powers with a considerable amount of craft. The
use of the ‘serpent’ was probably the author’s attempt a t
68
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
attacking t h e many forms of worship current among t h e
Canaanites in which t h e image of the serpent appeared as
a fertility symbol.” (Indeed archaeology has proved in
recent years t h a t the Cult of Fertility was widespread
throughout the Mediterranean world in aiicient times, and
t h a t t h e bull and the snake, because of their reputation for
fecundity, were the prevailing symbols of this Cult.) O n
this problem of the character of the Temptation-and-Fall
narrative, Archer remarks (SOTI, 190) that many prefer
to regard the story as one “in which the moral downfall of
man is described by a fictitious episode designed to illus-
trate it,” and t h a t those who hold this view would generally
agree t h a t “insofar as man is a fallen creature, a moral
agent with an innate sense of guilt, t h e ‘myth’ reflects a
sublime truth, even though no such isolated episode actually
took place.” Archer himself concludes: “No decisive objec-
tions, however, have ever been raised against the historicity
of Adam and Eve either on historical, scientific or philoso-
phical grounds. The protest has been based essentially upon
subjective concepts of probability.”
( 3 ) Are we to think, then, of the story of the Woman
m d t h e Serpent as a literary form comparable to the New
Testament parables? Some have so held. However, not
one of these stories in the first few chapters of Genesis has
either of the characteristics common to the parable, namely,
(a) as teaching one-and only one-specific spiritual lesson
in its content, and ( b ) as following t h e parabolic introduc-
tory formula of pointing up a specific likeness of some kind
(analogy) . Jesus characteristically introduced His parables
with the statement, “The kingdom of God is /ih,” etc,
Always in the parable some profound spiritual truth is
being emphasized by an illustration from the natural world
designed to make the point stand out clearly. In these
Genesis stories, however, we find no such frameworlr,
Again quoting Archer (SOTI, 192) : “Nowhere is it stated
t h a t the beginning of the world or of mankind was like
69
 GENESIS
anything analogous. A parable is never to be explained in
terms of itself; it always involves an analogy drawn from
something else. Just as it would never have been said,
‘The kingdom of God is like the kingdom of God,’ so it
could never hav.e been intended to imply, ‘The beginning
of the human race was like the beginning of the human
race,’ or, ‘The universal Flood was like the universal Flood.’
The parabolic element is completely lacking here.” More-
over, it should be noted that there is not just one funda-
mental truth, but many such truths, implied in these var-
ious narratives of the Book of the Beginnings. This fact
we shall note as we proceed with our study,
(4) It is to be granted, of course, that the mention of
a talking serpent might suggest a myth. T o the contrary,
Kaufmann emphasises the vast difference between Biblical
references to angels and devils and those of the pagan
mythologies. He writes as follows (RI, 6 6 ) : “What is
fundamental and peculiar to Jewish demonology is that
its spirits and devils derive, not from a primordial evil root,
but from sin. Its Satanic symbol is the land serpent, the
tempter of Eden, not the sea serpent (the dragon, or
.
Rahab), the primeval rebel against God , , Judaism’s
demons are the offspring of sin creatures; theii- power is
only to entice man into sin and thereby bring divine judg-
ment upon him. The same is true of the ‘princes of the
nations’ (cf. Dan. 10:13, 20). . . . They have no mytho-
logical features, nor are they sexually differentiated. . . ,
This absence i n the Bible.of the pagan conception of the
demonic is intrinsically nked with the absence of the-
ogony. It is of the essence of theolgony that a given god is
but one embodiment of the powers residing in the ptimor-
dial womb of all being. . .. Biblical religion, having con-
centrated divinity in one transcendent being, a t once did
away with theogony and’theomachy. Since there was no
‘womb’ out of which YHWH sprang, he could have no
‘brothers’ divine or demofiic. No antagonist could, there-
70
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
fore, be on a par with hiin.” Again (RI, 68, 69) : “Biblical
cosmology lacks also t h e basic pagan idea of a natural bond
between the deity and the universe. Creation is not de-
picted as a sexual process, nor does it proceed from t h e seed
of the god, his blood, spittle, tears, or the like. The idea
of a material emanation from the creator is foreign to t h e
Bible, . , , Whatever celestial beings there are belong to
the suite of the one God; only YHWH is active as creator.
The monotheism of these stories is, thus, not the outcome
of artificial adaptation of pagan materials. It permeates
their every aspect and finds expression even in passages of
artless naivete.”
( s ) Perhaps it should be noted a t this point again t h a t
many persons who put great emphasis on the significance
of “folklore” apparently overlook-or ignore-the fact
that tradition is often inspired by, and often embodies, pro-
found truth (truth which, of course, usually has become
corrupted by diffusion in the course of time). With re-
spect to the Temptation-and-Fall Narrative, it is obvious
that we have in it a disclosure of universal truth, that is to
say, of what happens in the life of every human being
(Rom. 3 : 2 3 ) , from the first hoiizo safiieiis (and even from
t h e evolutionist point of view, the line must have been
crossed a t some time, somewhere, from the subhuman to
the human) to every twentieth-century individual of the
same genus. As Murphy, although himself holding fast to
the traditional view t h a t it was real creature of serpentkind
that acted as t h e instrumentality of temptation in this
Narrative, writes (CG, 112) : “The whole is so deeply de-
signed, t h a t the origin and progress of evil in t h e breast
is as nearly as possible such as it might have been had there
been 110 prompter.” The pedigree of evil, as stated by
James (1 : 13-1 5 ) -Satan, lust, sin, death-is certainly pre-
sented clearly in this Narrative. Of course, the Christian
is under no obligatioii to stretch unduly any part of t h e
Biblical text, or to ferret out questionable hidden meanings
71
 GENESIS
therein, in order to bring it into correspondence with con-
temporary science. One who is familiar with the content
of the Bible as a whole knows well that it carries on its
pages the positive evidence of its own Divine origin as the
Book of the Spirit. However, in all instances in which
harmony can be seen to exist without doing violence to
Scripture teaching, surely this harmony-or a t least the
possibility of it-should be pointed up clearly, in order
that persons, and especially young men and women, of this
and succeeding generations may be strengthened in the most
holy faith. T o deliberately assume disharmony in cases in
which the possibility of harmony is present is a vicious
wzethodology.
( 6 ) The Critical (Analytical) Theory of the Tempta-
tion-and-Fall Narrative is stated clearly by Skinner (ICCG,
71-73), The serpent, he writes, is simply a creature of
Yahwe distinguished from the rest by its superior subtlety.
“The serpent, therefore, belongs to the category of ‘beasts
of the field’ , , . a t the same time it is a being possessing
supernatural knowledge, with the power of speech, and,
animated by hostility towards God. It is this last feature
which causes some perplexity.” Again: “All this belongs
t o the background of heathen mythology from which the
tnaterials of the narrative were drawn; and it is the in-
complete elimination of the mythological element, under
the influence of a monotheistic and ethical religion, which
makes the function of the serpent in Gn 3 so difficult to
understand. I n later Jewish theology the difficulty was
solved, as is well known, by the doctrine that the serpent
of Eden was the mouthpiece or impersonation of the devil
, , , The Jewish and Christian doctrine is a natural and
legitimate extension of the teaching of Gn 3, when the
problem of evil came to be apprehended in its real magni-
tude; but it is foreign to the thought of the writer, al-
though it cannot be denied that it may have some affinity
with the mythological background of his narrative.”
72
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
The “perplexity” admitted in oiie of t h e foregoing
statements is due to one fact, aiid one alone, namely, t h e
fact t h a t t h e adherents of this school assume t h a t Biblical
religion was a n invention (“progressively developed”) of
t h e human mind; hence, not a revelation by t h e agency of
the Spirit of God. The devotees of the Critical Theory
either ignore-or repudiate outright-my and every claim
of special inspiration which the Bible iiialies for itself.
They seem to have assumed w b i f ~ n ~ i the l y attitude m i s -
inJteiil3~held by those “certain disciples” whom Paul found
a t Ephesus, who, upon interrogation, admitted t h a t they
did not so much as kiiow that there is a Holy Spirit or a t
l e s t t h a t t h e Holy Spirit “was given” (Acts 19: 1-7). Of
course, to refuse to accept the Bible as tlie Booli of the
Spirit is to refuse to accept tlie fact of its internal uiiity-
a unity which can reasoiiably be ascribed oiily to Divine
inspiration. The Critical “analysts” simply brush aside
:iny possibility of Divine inspiration and supervision :ind
proceed to apply the “evolutioii yardstick” to the develop- ‘
meiit of Biblical teaching, Such n i l arbitrary a f ~ ~ f i i o ~ i
(purely subjective) assumption (or presumption?) is a
notable example of tlie distortion which occurs from the
refusal to follow one of the most important norms of in-
terpretation (one which I have repeatedly emphasized in
the preseiit text), namely, that tlie content of siiy segment
of Scripture can be properly understood only in t h e light
of Bible teaching ns n whole. As we shall see i u f y a , the
nature and design of the activity of the serpent of Eden
becomes crystal clear when studied in coniiectioii with all
other Scriptures t h a t bear upon t h e geiieral subject of
mnii’s Temptation and Fall. Finally, if the Bible is not the
Book of the Spirit of God (as it claims to be: cf. 1 Pet.
1:10-12, 2 Pet. 1 : Z I ; Acts 2 : 1 - 8 , 2 : l - 4 ; 1 Cor. 2 : 6 - 1 6 ;
Gal. I : 1 2 ; 1 Tliess. 2 : 1 3 , etc.) , then it is simply and com-
pletely a huinaiily produced book, aiid one which can no
more claim the authority t h a t attaches to Truth than can
73
 GENESIS
a work of Homer, Milton, Dante, Shakespeare, or any other
human writer (cf. John 8:31-32, 16:12-14, 17:17).
6. T h e Serpent a Real Creakare. That the serpent of
Eden was a real creature of the serpent kind seems the most
plausible view to take of it. This view is supported, more-
over, by the tenor of Biblical teaching as a whole. Note
the following matters of fact: (1) It is explicitly stated
that this serpent was a “beast of the field,” that is, neither
a domesticated animal nor a member of some inferior
species. (Note that it is not described as a creature like
unto a beast of the field.) ( 2 ) It is described by a power
(craftiness) that belongs, or is popularly thought to belong,
to real serpents (cf. Matt, 10:16). In antiquity, we are
told, the craftiness of serpentkind was proverbial. “The
serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which
Jehovah God had made.” That is, crafty: as Whitelaw
comments (PCG, J6), the word “can only be used either
(1) metaphorically for the devil, whose instrument it was;
or ( 2 ) prole$tically, with reference t o the results of the
temptation; for in itself, as one of God’s creatures, it must
have been originally goodm” (3) It seems only reasonable
that Satan should have used an apparently harmless agent
to bring about the seduction of the Woman, thus achieving
the added objection of concealing the identity of the real
tempter, One of Satan’s favorite devices has ever been that
of presenting himself to men in the guise of an “angel of
light” ( 2 Cor, 11 :14), (4) O n any other view, the serpent
itself was Eve’s superior. But this is not consistent with the
dominion God gave to man (Gen. 1 : 2 8 ) . ( j ) The curse
pronounced upon the serpent (Gen. 3: 14) would be mean-
ingless if the recipient of it had been only an apparition or
an unreal creature. Surely this curse pronounced upon
serpentkind in general nullifies all attempts to explain the
serpent of Eden in terms of symbol, allegory, or poetic
imagery.
74
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
7. The First Liaip a i d M i t r d c i w , Did the seriicnf act
aloiie in t h e traiisactioii, 01‘ did if act nzerely as the ageiii
of a .w$erioi+ intelligence? The language of t h e New Testa-
ment in referring to man’s temptation and fall implies its
literalness. E.g., cf,. 2 Cor. 11:3-surely we are justified
from this mention of t h e Fall in concluding t h a t t h e
Apostle was speaking of it as a n actual occurreiice. White-
law (PCG, $ 7 ): “Equally with t h e theory t h a t t h e devil
was the only agent in man’s temptation, aiid t h a t the
serpent is purely the allegorical dress in which the historian
clothes him (Eusebius, Cajetan, Quarry, Alford) , must t h e
notion be rejected t h a t there was nothing but a serpent
(Aben Ezra, Icalisch, Knobel) ,” It is evident that the
serpent was but the i i z s t i w ~ i e n tthrough which a far more
cunning and diabolical agent spoke and acted, for several
reasons, as follows: ( I ) because the power of speech is not
a natural endowment of the serpent.. Hence, it must have
used articulate language, on this occasion, 2s the mouth-
piece of a superhuman intelligence. I<-D (BCOTP, 9 2 ) :
“When the serpent, theref ore, is introduced as speaking,
and t h a t just as if it had been entrusted with the thoughts
of God Himself, t h e speaking must have emanated, not
from the serpent, but from a superior spirit, which had
taken possession of the serpent for the sake of seducing
man,” Shook (GB, 61) : “We are not to suppose from the
account t h a t a literal serpent became t h e devil. The
serpent was simply the agent through which tlie devil
operated in the deception. I t seems probable from the
account that originally tlie beast walked upright, and that
as a result of the curse (Gen, 3 : 14) his species crawl upon
the ground.” Ralaam’s ass, by a divine impulsion, spoke
in articulate words (Num. 2 2 2 1 - 3 5 , 2 Pet. 2:16) ; so the
serpent in tempting Eve must have spoken by diabolical
impulse. ( 2 ) Because there is no other ground on which
we can explain t h e serpent’s diabolical cunning aiid its
murderous intention. “Is it presumable that God could
7J
 GENESIS
have endowed the serpent or any other creature with such
diabolical and hellish propensities?” (Milligan) .
(3) Because the7.e is no other ground on which w e can
explain t h e words of Jesus in John 8:44. Here J e w s tells
ZLSt h a t t h e Devil was the fiirst liar aizd the first murderer,
and w e Kizow that the first lie enznnated fronz the m o n t h
of the serpent and that the whole hztman race was murdered
by its sedaictiom of the W o m a n . Note the many instances
in which our Lord is said to have recognized the real
existence of Satan and his rebellious angelic host (Matt.
25:41; Luke 10:17-20, 11:17-26; Matt. 4:10, 12:26, 13:28,
16:23; Mark 3:23, etc.). That these were not just cases
of His accommodation of His language to popular “super-
stitions” is evident ( a ) from the positive unequivocal
character of his statements (no such phrases ever fell from
His lips as, e.g., “as you think this to be” or “as in our
tradition we hold this to be,” etc., etc.) ; (b) from the
instances in which demonic possession is clearly distin-
guished from disease or insanity (Matt. 4:24, 8:16-17,
10:8; Mark 1:32, 16:17-18; Luke 10:17-20; John 10:19-
20) ; (c) from passages in which Jesus addressed these
demons as persons and they answered as such, confessing
H i m t o be the Son of God and their ultimate Judge (Matt.
8:28-33; Mark 1:21-28, 1:32-34, 3:9-12, 1:1-20, 7:24-30,
9:17-29; Luke 4:33-36; cf. also Jas, 2:19; Acts 16:16-18,
19 :11-18 ) . Note that these demons were explicitly recog-
nized by Jesus as agents of Satan (Matt. 12:22-32, Luke
10: 17-20, 11 :15-22), and that they showed superhuman
knowledge of Jesus and His Spirit-filled Apostles (Matt.
8 : 2 9 ; Mark 1:24, 34; Acts 16:17, 19:11), Had they not
been present with Jesus and known Him as the eternal
Logos, prior to their rebellion against the Divine govern-
ment? (Cf. Luke 1 0 : 1 8 ) . The positive identification, by
Jesus, of Satan as the first liar and the first murderer,
certainly can leave us in no doubt as to the identity
of the real Tempter who lurked behind the scene in the
76
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
primeval Garden. (Review the account of Satan aiid his
pre-mundane rebellion, his subsequent career and inevitable
doom, as outlined in Part Eleven S?//IJV.)
(4) Because there is no other ground on which we can
explain the Scriptures which refer to Satan as t h e Old
Serpent, c.g., Rev. 12!9, 20:2; cf, Rom. 16:20, Num. 21:6-
9, Isa. 14:29, ( r ) Because there is no basis on which we
can explain the twofold implication of Gen. 3 : 14-1 5, which
implies not only literal warfare between all mankind and
the serpentkind, but also spiritual warfare between the
Seed of the Woman and tlie Old Serpent, t h e Devil (Eph.
6:12, 1 Pet. 5 : 8 ) . ( 6 ) Because this view unquestionably is
confirmed by t h e account of tlie temptation of our Lord
(Matt. 4:l-11). IC-D (BCOTP, 93) : “The temptation of
Christ is the counterpart of that of Adam. Christ was
tempted by the devil, not only like Adam, but because
Adam had been tempted and overcome, in order that by
overcoming the tempter He might wrest from the devil
t h a t dominion over the whole race which he had secured
by his victory over t h e first human pair. The tempter
approached the Savior openly; to the first man he came
in disguise. The serpent is not a merely symbolical term
applied t o Satan; nor was it only the form which Satan
assumed; but it was a real serpent, perverted by Satan to be
the instrument of his temptation (vers. 1 and 14) .” N o
doubt Satan :ipproached Christ openly because he knew
t h a t the latter could penetrate every disguise and uncover
every deception. Milligan (SR, 43-41) : “On the hypoth-
esis that tliere was in this iirst temptation a twofold
agency; t h a t Satan spoke through a literal serpent, just as
demons, in the time of Christ, spoke through real men and
women: 011 this hypothesis, I say, all is plain, simple, and
natural. It is, then, easy to account for all the facts in
this eventful case, and especially to see how it was t h a t
t h e woman, being a t length deceived and overcome by
the hellish inalice and diabolical cunning aiid artifice of the
77
 GENESIS
Serpent, stretched forth her hand, and plucked and ate
‘Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
Brought death into the world, and all our woe.’”
New York Presbyter (RQ, 426): “We see no reason to
regard this story as a myth or allegory devised by someone
to explain how sin first entered the world. The incident
described is just such as may have taken place during the
primitive life of Eden. It is not to be supposed, however,
that the serpent spake as represented, but only that i t ap-
peared to do so. The voice was that of the Tempter, whom
the woman did not distinguish from the animal of which
he had taken possession. Indeed the whole narrative assumes
what may be styled a temporary identity of Satan with
the serpent. The nature of the event indicates that a
crafty, evil spirit, seeking t o alienate man from God, chose
the serpent as a means of engaging Eve’s attention, and
then addressed her in well-chosen, deceitful words.” The
epithet subtle seems to be used here in a twofold sense:
first, literally, as descriptive of certain physical powers
srhich, though good in themselves, were capable of being
perverted to an unnatural use through the power and craft
of a superior being (cf. Matt. 10:16) , and second, meta-
phorically, as descriptive of the cunning and deceitfulness
of the Devil, manifested by and through the brute creature
in whom he operated. Joseph Parker (PBG) : “The serpd’t
itself is the best comment on the text. L,ook a t it: glitter-
ing, lithe, cunning, cold, smooth, poisonous-truly it looks
as if it might have done it! I don’t think the lion could,
or the elephant, the eagle, or the ox, but the serpent brings
with it a high probability of baseness and mischief.” “Now
of all the beasts of the field the serpent had the most of
those qualities which are typical of a tempter-no lion’s
roar, no horrid dragon’s form, but often beautiful in color-
ing and graceful in motion” (Peloubet). Marcus Dods
(EBG, 2 0 ) : “Temptation comes like a serpent; like the
78
 THE BEGINNING 01:MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
most subtle beast of the field; like t h a t one creature which
is said to exert a fascinating influence on its victims,
fastening them with its glittering eye, stealing upon them
by its noiseless, low and unseen approach, perplexing them
by its wide circling folds, seeming to come upon them from
all sides a t once, and armed not like the other beasts with
weapon of offence-horn, or hoof, or teeth-but capable
of crushing its victim with every part of its sinuous
length. It lies apparently dead for months together, but
when roused it can, as the naturalist tells us, ‘outclimb the
monkey, outswim the fish, outleap the zebra, outwrestle
the athlete, and crush the tiger.’ How naturally in
describing temptation do we borrow language from the
aspects and movements of this creature.” Matthew Henry
(CWB, 8 ) : “It is certain that it was the devil t h a t beguiled
Eve. The devil and Satan is the Old Serpent (Rev. 1 2 : 9 ) ,
a malignant spirit, by creation an angel of light and an
immediate attendant upon God’s throne, but by sin become
an apostate from his first state and a rebel against God’s
crown and dignity. He knew lie could not destroy man
but by debauching him. The game therefore which Satan
had to play was to draw our first parents to sin, and so
t o separate between them and their God. The whole race
of mankind had here, as it were, but one neck and a t that
Satan struck. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent.
( 1 ) Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine
colors t h a t are but skin-deep, and seems to come from
above; for Satan can seem a n angel of light. And ( 2 ) Be-
cause it is a subtle creature. Many instances are given of
t h e subtlety of tlie serpent, both to do mischief and to
secure himself in it when it is done. We are directed to be
wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by t h e devil,
was no doubt more subtle than any other; for the devil,
though lie has lost the sanctity, retains tlie sagacity of an
.
angel, and is wise to do evil. , , It is remarkable that the
Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in t h e
79
 GENESIS
shape and form of a serpent, thereby avowing their ad-
herence t o that apostate spirit, and wearing his colors.”
Errett (EwB, 2 4 ) : “To a child, there are few things more
attractive than a glittering serpent, with its curving mo-
tions, its brilliant colors, and the magnetic charm of its eye,
It is a fit symbol of the devil in his sly, insidious approaches,
his cunning, and the power to charm that precedes his
power t o destroy.”
T h e Devil has yea1 personal existence. Modern theologi-
cal myth-makers would like to have us think the Devil to
be a figment of the human imagination and so deny his
personality altogether. This view, however, cannot be
made t o harmonize with Scripture teaching, and opens up
greater difficulties than the acceptance of Satan’s real
existence. We must not forget that personality exists in
other entities than the human. Man’s body does not make
his personality-the person, rather, dwells in the body. We
must distinguish between Personnlity and individuality. It
is a well-known empirical fact that more than one person-
ality may occupy the same physical tabernacle. (See T h e
Dissociation of a Personality, by Dr. Morton Prince, for
the famous case of Sally Beauchamp.) If it is possible for
personality to exist clothed in a human form, why not in
other forms? Satan is not a m a n ; Satan is a fallen angel.
“We may well say ‘personal’ devil, for there is no devil
but personality.” Dummelow (CHB, 63 6 ) : “The allusions
to Satan and his angels are too frequent and emphatic,
to make it easy to suppose that our Lord did not believe
in their personality; and, moreover, belief in an impersonal
devil presents greater difficulties to faith than belief in a
personal one. That evil should exist a t all, in a world
created and governed by a good and all-powerful Being, is
a serious moral and intellectual difficulty. But that diffi-
culty is reduced to a minimum if we suppose that it is
due t o the activity of a hostile personality. Opposition
to God’s will on the part of a personal, self-determining
80
 T H E BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
agent, though mysterious, is conceivable. Opposition to
it on the part of any impersonal evil influence or physical
force is (to most modern minds) inconceivable.” Strong
(ST, 447) : “We cannot deny the personality of Satan ex-
cept upon principles which would compel us to deny the
existence of good angels, the personality of t h e Holy Spirit,
and the personality of God the Father-we may add, even
the personality of the humaii soul. ... One of t h e most
ingenious devices of Satan is t h a t of persuading men t h a t
h e has no real existence. Next to this is the device of sub-
stituting for belief in a personal devil the belief in a merely
impersonal spirit of evil.” New Yorli Presbyter (RO, 440) :
“There is no ground to believe that Satan does not exist
in this twentieth century. It may be through his influence
that error, even absurd error, gains *adherents among man-
kind so easily; t h a t false religions maintain their hold on
heathen lands; t h a t perversions of moral principle lead to
methodical selfishness and inhumanity; that civil govern-
ments are often organized for robbery and oppression, and
for forcible conquest, and t h a t nations who would live a t
peace are forced into bloody war. .. . We believe that
Christians of today, no less than those of old time, should
be ‘sober and vigilant because their adversary the Devil
goeth about seeking whom he may devour.”’ Satan has
real existence. When he was before God accusing Job, the
Almighty asked “Whence comest thou?” Satan replied,
“From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking
up and down in it.” H e was with Jesus in person on the
mount of temptation and in the Garden of Gethsemane.
There are times in the life of everyone who is trying to
live the life of “righteousness and peace and joy in the
Holy Spirit” (Rom. 1j:17) when Satan is present with
him in person, tempting him to backslide and thus to
cccrucifythe Son of God afresh and put him t o an open
shame” (Heb. 6 : 6 ) . He has attended every Gospel meet-
ing ever held on this earth and whispered into the ears of
81
 GENESIS
anxious sinners, “You have only one life to live,’) “Time
enough yet,” etc. Be not deceived by Satan about Satan!
8 . The Temptation.
“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of
the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said
unto the woman, Yet, both God said, Ye shall not eat
of any tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto
the serpent, O f the fruit of the trees of the garden we
mqi eat; 3 h t of the fruit of the tree which is in the
midst of the garden, God bdth said, Ye shall not eat o f
it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the
serpent said unto the wman, Ye shall not surely die; 7
f o r God doth Know that in the day y e eat thereof, then
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, kizow-
ing good and evil” (Gen. 3 :1 - 5 ) .
Some hold that, because the Devil is superhuman, though
not infinite, in knowledge and in power, he endowed the
serpent with the gift of speech for the time being, much as
Yahweh once put articulate language in the mouth of
Balaam’s ass (Num. 2 2 : 2 8 - 3 0 ) . Whether this be true, or
whether the serpent itself only appeared to be speaking,
the “Voice” (the communication) was that of the Temp-
ter, the Adversary of souls (1 Pet. 5 : 8 ) , the Old Serpent,
the Devil (Rev. 12:9, 2 0 : 2 ) .
1. Note the Tempter’s subtlefy in his selection of the
woman as the object of his approach: ( 1 ) Because she
was the weaker vessel, Le., possessing a more dependent
character. Errett (EwB) : “Woman has more generally
been injured and ruined through an abuse of that affec-
tionate trust, which is really one of her main characteris-
tics, than by any other means.” ( 2 ) because he knew that
through her the man could be more easily reached and per-
suaded to commit sin. That this proved to be the case is
made clear in 2 Cor. 1 1 : 3 and 1 Tim. 2:12-15.
2. Note the diabolical malice of the Tempter. Who but
82
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
the totally depraved Satan-the inveterate enemy of God
and all good-could have molested t h a t happy pair who
had been created in God’s image, and thus have brought
wholesale ruin on t h e whole human race?
3. Note his diabolical cuiiiiiiig: (1) in attacking the
woman, t h e weaker of the two human creatures; ( 2 ) in
attacking her when apparently she was alone and so un-
supported by her husband; ( 3 ) in selecting such a favor-
able place for the temptation, namely, near the forbidden
tree itself: the context seems to indicate t h a t she was near
the tree, when Satan approached her, and was probably
gazing upon its fruit, t h e very existence of which must
have whetted her curiosity; (4) in choosing a method of
approach t h a t was designed first of all to weaken her faith
in God. (Even if a literal serpent, a literal tree, and literal
fruit, were not involved here, the essential truth remains
unaffected, namely, that the woman was prompted to the
doing of some kind of act, with reference to some end, the
contemplation of which had power to induce lust in her
-an act which she knew to be one that God had expressly
told her she iizust i i o t do. The manner in which she dis-
obeyed God is not of as much concern to us as is the act
itself: the fact of her disobedience is the matter of first
importance in this narrative. Call the account symbolical
or allegorical or sheer ccfolklore,” if you will, still and all
the integrity of the Scripture revelation is not impugned,
because the facts still remain (a) that somewhere, a t some
time, on this earth, reason and conscience came into play
in the first ho7izo sapiens, and ( b ) that we have in this
narrative a clear description of what has happened, and
continues to happen, in the life of every human being on
attaining the age of accountability. Rom. 3 :23-“all have
sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.”)
4.Note that the wonzaiZ appareiitly exhibited 150 fear on
beariiig articulate speech f ronz the serpeizt’s mouth. Why
was this? Because she was not yet familiar with the in-
83
 GENESIS
stincts and powers of all the lower animals? (But, had
not Adam already become acquainted with the various
species of birds and beasts, and their characteristics, as
indicated by his naming of them? Cf. Gen. 2:18-20).
It seems that Mother Eve was not affrighted by the
serpent’s speech primarily because fear had not yet enteved
Eden, Errett (EwB): “They had, as yet, no reason to
dread any of the creatures over which they had been
constituted sovereigns. Nor is there any reason to believe
that the speaking of a serpent would, in their experience,
have been any more wonderful than a thousand other
things. As yet, everything was wonderful.” Fear e~ztered
t h e scene, along with suffeving, SOYYOW and death, as a con-
sequence of sin (1 John 4:18, Jas. 1:13-15, Heb. 2:14-15).
5 . Nolte the first recorded words of the Tempter: “Yea,
hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?”
“Yea,” that is, Is it really true that God has forbidden you
to eat of any tree? The question was voiced either in
irony, as if to insinuate that if God had really issued such
a prohibition, it was a very foolish thing to do; or flip-
pantly, as if t o say, “I have heard a bit of news. Pray tell
me if it is true. Has God commanded you saying, You
shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” Or, perhaps
sarcastically, as if to say, by innuendo, What kind of God
is this who would restrict your personal liberty by such a
foolish injunction? It seems obvious that the Tempter’s
voice in this instance was fairly dripping with insinuations
designed to impugn Yahweh’s wisdom and goodness.
C.H.M. (NBG, 34): “The devil did not openly present
himself and say, I am the devil, the enemy of God, and I
am come to traduce Him and ruin you. This would not
be serpent-like and yet he really did all this by raising
questions in the mind of the creature.” In man’s dealings
with God, trouble invariably arises for him when an IF
comes into the picture. C.H.M. (NBG, 34): “To admit
the question, ‘Hath God said?’ when I know that God
84
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
hath spoken, is positive infidelity; and the very fact of m y
admitting it, proves my total incapacity to meet it. Hence,
in Eve’s case, t h e form of her reply evidenced the fact
that she had admitted to her heart the serpent’s crafty
inquiry, Instead of adhering strictly to the exact words
of God, she, in her reply, actually adds thereto.” M. Henry
(CWB, 8 ) : ‘‘Satan teaches men first to doubt, and then
to deny; he makes them sceptics first, and so by degrees
makes them atheists.”
6. Why did Satan approach the woiigaii, through the in.-
strumei?tdity of an animal? KD (BCOTP, 9 3-94) :
“Notwithstanding his self -willed opposition to God, Satan
is still a creature of God, and was created a good spirit;
although, in proud self-exaltation, he abused the freedom
essential to the nature of a superior spirit to purposes of
rebellion against his Maker. He cannot therefore entirely
shake off his dependence upon God. And this dependence
may possibly explain the reason, why he did not come
‘disguised as an angel of light’ to tempt our first parents
to disobedience, but was obliged to seek the instrument of
his wickedness among the beasts of the field. The trial
of our first progenitors was ordained by God, because
probation was essential to their spiritual development and
self-determination. But as He did not desire that they
shodd be tempted to their fall, H e would not suffer Satan
to tempt them in a way which would surpass their human
capacity. The tempted might therefore have resisted the
tempter. If instead of approaching them in the form of
a celestial being, in the likeness of God, he came in that of
a creature, not only far inferior to God, but f a r below
themselves, they could have no excuse for allowing a mere
animal to persuade them t o break the commandment of
God. For they had been made to have dominion over the
beasts, and not to take their own law from them. More-
over, the fact that an evil spirit was approaching them in
the serpent, could hardly be concealed from them, Its
8j
 GENESIS
speaking alone must have suggested that: for Adam had
already become acquainted with the nature of the beasts,
and had not found one among them resembling himself-
not one, therefore, endowed with reason and speech. The
substance of the address, too, was enough to prove that it
was no good spirit which spake through the serpent, but
one a t enmity with God. Hence, when they paid atten-
tion to what he said, they were altogether without excuse.”
7. N o t e that Satan used the name Elohim and not the
name Y a h w e h . Lange holds that the Tempter could not
utter the name Yahweh (Jehovah), and knew that he
could not, as his assault was directed against the paradisaical
covenant of God with man. Others have held that Satan
wished to avoid profaning the name of Yahweh, a view
difficult to accept in the light of Satan’s vicious and total
depravity. Whitelaw (PCG, 5 8 ) : “By using the name
Elohim instead of Jehovah the covenant relationship of
God towards man was obscured, and man’s position in the
garden represented as that of a subject rather than a
son.)’
8, N o t e that the Tempter deliberately altered the Divine
injunction, quoting it fallaciously as if it were a prohibi-
tion not only of the one tree but of all. Truly, when the
occasion demands it, even the Devil can cite Scripture for
his own purposes (cf. Matt. 4:5-6). Misqzlotiizg the word
of God, udding t o it, sarbtracting froin it, or sirbstitaLting
f o r it-these have eveip been among his favorite tactics.
And b y p r o m p t i fig the professional theologians to employ
precisely the same tactics, hc has used them througho2rt
Christian history to corrupt Biblical iiomenclature and to
to m u l t i p l y divisions in Christendom. Cf. for example
our present-day pseudo-theological clowns with their God-
is-dead blasphemies and their “demythologizing” stupidities.
9. N o t e the skillfiil iiiimeudo with which the Devil in-
vited conversation and masked his arltimate design. His
question was purposely insinuating. It implied, “God is
86
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
very good, to be sure, but has H e not laid some useless and
trying restrictions upon you? Surely this must be a mis-
take. If He loved you, could H e shut you away from the
delicious fruit on yonder tree? Are you to live in para-
dise and not be able to enjoy it?” (Peloubet), Or, Is not
this one prohibition a devious and arbitrarily imposed limi-
tation on your personal liberty? Skinner (ICCG, 73) :
rrYesball not eat of ~ 7 7 3tree: ~ the range of t h e prohibition
is purposely exaggerated in order to provoke inquiry and
criticism.” His first effort was, of course, to create doubt
in the woman’s mind: cf. the “If” used by Satan, in the
temptation of Jesus, to introduce his appeals. (Matt. 4 : l -
11).
10. N o t e t h a t t h e Teiizptey kersistently koiiited to the
oiw restriction, bid iaeueqp even iizentioned the wide range
of privileges which the Woiizan enjoyed. Millions of trees,
no doubt, and countless varieties of fruit were free to her,
yet Satan kept her attention centered on t h e one act that
had been forbidden. M. Henry (CWB, 8 ) : “We are
often, in Scripture, told of our danger by the temptations
of Satan, his devices (2 Cor. 2 : 1 1 ) , his depths (Rev. 2 : 2 4 ) ,
and his wiles (Eph. 6: 11). The greatest instances we have
of them are in his tempting of t h e two Adams, here, and
in Matt. iv. In this he prevailed, but in that he was
baffled. When he spoke t o them, on whom he had no
hold by any corruption in them, he speaks in us by our
own deceitful hearts and their carnal reasonings; this makes
his assaults on us less discernible, but not less dangerous.
That which the devil aimed a t was to persuade Eve to eat
the forbidden fruit; and, to do this, he took the same
method that he does still. He questioned whether it was
a sin or no, v. 1. He denied there was any danger in it,
v. 4. He suggested much advantage by it, v. 5 . And
these are his common topics.”
11. N o t e 1’71 s o w detail the woinaiif’s response t o Satan’s
upProach. (1) She made her flttal nzistake iia teiizporiziizg
87
 GENESIS
with the Devil. Though not afraid of the serpent, since
as yet there was no enmity between any of God’s creatures,
nor astonished at what seemed to be its voice, probably
because she was not as yet familiar with all the powers and
instincts of the lower animals, still and all, the very words
which the Old Serpent addressed t o her were of such a
character as to have put her on guard. She might have
perceived by his innuendo that he had no good end in
view, and should have answered, Get thee behind me, etc.
(cf. Matt. 1 6 : 2 3 ) . But she temporized regarding the
point a t issue, and this was all the Devil wanted: he knew
that ultimate victory was in his grasp. ( 2 ) In replying
to the Tempter, she took notice a t first of the liberality
of God’s gifts. In substance, she said, “Yes, we may eat
of the fruit of the trees in the garden; we enjoy both
variety and plenty.” But she did not expressly associate
the name of God with this liberality, though she did recall
it in reciting His one restraint. “Eve replies that, We
may eat of all, except one, laying emphasis on the liberality
of God’s gifts and on the danger of disobeying. But, at
the same time, she left out three emphatic expressions in
her quotation of God’s permission-every tree, freely eat,
and surely die-which shows that the temptation was be-
ginning t o take effect. Whoever parleys with temptation
is already on the verge of danger’’ (Peloubet). ( 3 ) She
added to the prohibitory enactment the clause, “neither
shall ye touch it.” Surely this was indicative of the initial
effect on the woman of the Tempter’s insinuations. These
had given rise to a sense of personal injury, to justify
whidh she converted what was a t most only an implication
of the original charge into an express prohibition. Sin is
always present in additions to, subtractions from, or sub-
stitutioiis for, the word of God. (4) She used the same
name for the Deity thgt Satan had med: Elobim. Both
referred to God by the name Elohim only. It would seem
that in this more general and indefinite name, the per-
88
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
sonalify of the living God is obscured. ( 5 ) She altered
the word of God. She iiot only added the clause, “neither
shall ye touch it,” but she omitted t h e word surely which
had been explicit in the Divine prohibition. Was this an
attempt to represent the penalty in a somewhat softened
form, thus indicating she had begun to think it unjust?
Surely in modifying God’s explicit warning, “Thou shalt
die” (2:18) to a less emphatic, “lest ye die,” she showed
her willingness to trifle with t h e Divine command.
Departure from the “pattern of sound words” ( 2 Tim.
1:13, 2:2, 3:16-17; John 6 : 6 3 ; 1 Cor. 2:lO-16), from
calling Bible things by Bible names-the substitution of
theological lingo for t h e language of the Spirit-inevitably
leads t o confusion, schism, heresy and apostasy. Christians
must never forget the Lord’s positive declaration: “Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but my words shall iiot pass
away” (Matt. 24:35). How significant t h a t Jesus resisted
Satan’s appeals by resorting t o the Divine word (Matt.
4:1-11), C.H.M. (NBG, pp. 34-37) ; “The Lord Jesus, in
His conflict with Satan, accurately applied the Word, be-
cause He lived upon it, and esteemed it more than His
necessary food. He could not misquote or misapply the
Word, neither could He be indifferent about it. Not so
. .
Eve, She added to what God had said. . Obedience is
due from us to Cod’s Word, simply because it is His Word,
T o raise a question, when God has spoken, is blasphemy.
We are in the place of a creature. He is t h e Creator; He
may, therefore, justly claim obedience from us. The
infidel may call this ‘blind obedience,’ but the Christian
calls it intelligent obedience, inasmuch as it is based upon
the knowledge t h a t it is God’s Word to which he is
obedient. If a inan had not God’s Word, he might well
be said to be in blindness and darkness, for there is not so
much as a single ray of divine light within or around us
but what emanates from God’s pure and eternal Word.
All t h a t we want to know is t h a t God has spoken, and
89
 GENESIS
then obedience becomes the very highest order of intelligent
acting. When the soul gets up to God, it has reached the
.
very highest source of authority. . . Eve suffered God
to be contradicted by a creature, simply because His Word
had lost its proper authority over her heart, her conscience
and her understanding.”
12. Note the significance of the location of the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is said to have been
“in the midst of the garden.” We have here the story of
the beginning of liberty under the law. This tree was in
the midst of the garden. No restrictions were placed upon
our first parents with reference to the fruit of the many
other trees of the garden: the one restriction that was
placed upon them was with respect to the fruit of this
particular tree which was in the midst of all the others.
Whether in heaven or on earth, Law must always be at
the very heart and center of all liberty, angelic or human.
That is to say, liberty is never enjoyed outside the circum-
ference of the law. This universal truth is true of both
the moral and the civil law. “Why,” sneeringly ask the
atheists and agnostics, “suspend the destiny of the world
on so trivial circumstance as the eating of an apple?” (Of
course, as pointed out heretofore, there i s no mention of
an apple in the Genesis account.) Pfeiffer (BG, 2 1 ) :
“Man was created an upright being with the capacity for
obedience, Man was also created a moral being, and as
such, he was subjected to a test. The place of man’s
temptation was the finest imaginable. In the beautiEd
Garden of Eden, God had placed everything that man could
wish for his well-being. Nothing was lacking in man’s
environment. As a test, however, man was subject to one
prohibition. He might ‘freely eat’ of all the trees of the
garden save one, the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and
evil.’ ”
Milligan (SR, 38-40) : “Observe, 1. That it is a matter
of very great importance to know ourselves, and especially
90
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
to know whether our hearts are strictly loyal to God or
not. 2. That it is exceedingly difficult to do this. Mil-
lions of the human race are still ignorant of themselves,
notwithstanding all that God has done to reveal the secrets
of the human heart. 3 . That no better test of man’s
loyalty could have been given than t h a t which, according
to Moses, God ordained and appointed for this purpose.
For, ( 1 ) It was easily understood by all, No rational and
accountable being could possibly mistake what was required
by this command. ( 2 ) Any violation of this precept must,
therefore, proceed from a spirit of pure disloyalty. Like
every other positive ordinance, its binding obligation
depended wholly and solely on the command and authority
of the Lawgiver. , . . (4) But the spiifit of disloyalty
cherished in t h e heart will as certainly lead to a man’s
condemnation and final ruin as will the open and overt
transgression of any law, whether it be moral or positive.
See Matt, 5:22, 28. ( 5 ) And hence it follows that this
positive precept, originally given to man as a test of his
loyalty, was in no sense the cause of his disloyalty. It
was simply t h e occasion and proof of it. It was the
meaiis of clearly and uiiinistakably revealing t o Adam and
Eve their true and proper character, and standing before
God, after they had mentally yielded to the temptation.
To know this is always a blessing to any mail who is still
within the limits of God’s pardoning mercy. Aiid hence
we conclude that the Tree of Ihowledge of Good and
Evil, as well as t h e Tree of Life, was given to man for
his good, and in the true spirit of Divine benevolence.’’
1 3 . Note the diabolical cuniiiizg o f Sataii as explicit iiz
the suggestions b y which he pressed his seduction of the
womaii. Observe ( 1 ) How bold he became, when he
sensed that his victim was wealceiling under his attack. He
first questioned whether or not there was any sin involved
in eating of t h e forbidden fruit; then he began to insinuate
t h a t there really was no danger i n it; and finally, he came
91
 GENESIS
out boldly and declared there was actual advantage to be
gained from it. ( 2 ) How he challenged the word of God.
In spite of the fact that God had said, “Thou shalt surely
die,” the Old Serpent boldly declared, “Ye shall not surely
die.” (Note that whereas Eve had omitted the word
ccsurely’ythe Devil did not do so.) Thus the word of the
Tempter was pitted directly against the Word of God, and
the woman was compelled to make a choice. This is the
choice which all accountable human beings must make in
passing through this world-none can avoid it (Rom.
3 : 2 3 ) . ( 3 ) How he played on the word, “die.” Joseph
Parker: “It is used by the serpent in the sense of dropping
down dead, or violently departing out of this world;
whereas the meaning, as we all know by bitter experience,
is infinitely deeper.” C.H.M. (NG, 3 9 ) : “I cannot know
God and not have life. The loss of the knowledge of God
was death; but the knowledge of God is life.” (John 17:3).
Peloubet: “This was the most deadly of lies, for it was a
half-truth, by far the smallest half. The death did not
come a t once like a lightning stroke, and the most deadly
death was that of the spirit, not of the body. Satan is
never so devilish as when he is disguised as an angel of
light.” (2 Cor. 11:14). As Tennyson has written:
“That a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest
of lies,
That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought
with outright,
But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter
t o fight.”
This is the first lie that is recorded in Scripture, and in
John 8:44, Jesus refers it to the Devil as the father of
liars. M. Henry (CWB, 8 ) “It is the subtlety of Satan
t o blemish the reputation of the divine law as uncertain
or unreasomble and so draw people to sin.” (4) H o w
Satan thus o p e d y challenged the veracity of God: “Ye
92
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
shall iiot surely die; for God Jtizoweth that iiz the d a y y e
eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,” etc. His
statement was a downright lie, because it was not only
contrary to God’s Word, but to his own knowledge as
well: he had broken the law of Heaven and had experi-
enced something of the misery of rebellion; and, in en-
couraging others to disobedience, he said what he knew by
woeful experience to be absolutely false. (1 John 2:21, 27) .
Moreover, his lie was such as to give the lie to God Him-
self: it was a bold assertion that God was not truthful in
His dealings with His creatures. ( 5 ) How be opeizly
challeizged God’s iizotiues. His first assertion was that God
was not truthful; his next, t h a t God was selfish and
envious. “For God doth know that in the day ye eat
thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as
God, knowiiig good and evil.” Note that H e accused
God of envy (as if to say, Rest assured it is not because
of any fear that you will die from eating the fruit of
t h a t particular tree that God has declared it “off limits”
to you; rather, it is because He knows that your eating
of it will make you His rivals) ; and of falsehood (in His
affirming to be true, “ye shall surely die,” what He knew
to be false, and in pretending t o be concerned about your
welfare, when as a matter of fact He is only jealous of
.
His own sovereignty) Note Satan’s growing aggressive-
ness toward the woman and his sheer audacity toward
God: in abject depravity he has now reached the point
of viciously impugning the Divine goodness. ( 6 ) How
ambiguous He became in his bold assertions. “Your eyes
shall be opened”: suggesting t o the woman the attainment
of higher wisdom, but literally pointing forward to what
the Devil knew would occur, namely, their discovery of
their own nakedness (finitude?). “And ye shall be as
God, knowing good and evil,” another admixture of truth
and falsehood. Adam and Eve (the human race) did
learn to know evil, not as God knows it, ;.e., as something
93
 GENESIS
to be hated and summarily rejected, but, as Satan knows
it, as a matter of bitter experience. We might ask, Just
how does God “know” evil? Certainly not as a matter of
His own experience, for He is infinitely good; but only as
Infinite Holiness can know it, in its utter heinousness, as
an inherent anathema of His own Will. This means that
God knows evil in a sense that man can never know it,
just as the God side of Jesus could abhor sin and could
suffer such excruciating agony, both in the Garden and
on the Cross (Luke 22:44, Matt. 27:46), as no human
being could suffer and go on living, This is a great
mystery, to be sure, the mystery designated by Miguel de
Unamuno, “The Agony of Christianity,’’ the mystery with
depths so profound that no human intellect could ever
hope-or even want-to plumb its depths. Hence, such
knowledge, were it possible t o man, wozdd be illicit k n o w l -
edge (cf. Job 11:7, also chs. 38-41; Isa. 40:28, 46:8-11).
Throughout all these considerations, the fundamental truth
of the Devil’s arrogant and ambiguous charges remains
unshaken, namely, the results which Satan promised did
ensue, but how different were they from what the woman
anticipated! The lesson for us, and for all humanity, is
crystal clear: Satan constantly deceives us in this manner-
by promising so much yet giving ’so little; and even the
little turns t o ashes in our human experience.
( 7 ) “ T h e knowledge of good an.d euil”-let us re-
examine this phrase here. As stated heretofore, the phrase
is viewed by many commentators as conveying the idea of
omniscience. Others see in it a possible sexual connota-
tion, on the view that God might have forbidden tempo-
rarily the exercise of their sexual powers. This’writer is
inclined to the former view, for the simple reason that in
the final analysis the good and the true and the beaidiful
are essentially one and t h e same: hence, whatever rolesmay
be assigned to sex, that remains but a part of the whole
human experiential picture. On this subject, therefore, I
94
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON E A R T H
commend t h e following Maimonidean exposition (GP, 14-
1J ) : “As man’s distinction consists in a property which
no other creature on earth possesses, viz., intellectual per-
ception, in the exercise of which he does not employ his
senses, nor move his hand or his foot, this perception has
been compared-though only apparently, not in truth-to
the Divine perception, which requires no corporeal organ.”
Maimonides then sets forth a criticism which is heard
frequently, as follows: “It would a t first sight appear from
Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly
equal to the rest of t h e animal creation, which is not
endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing
between good and evil: but that Adam’s disobedience to
the command of God procured him t h a t great perfection
which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of dis-
tinguishing between good and evil-the noblest of the
faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the
human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment
for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to
a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained
previously. This is equivalent to saying that a certain
man was rebellious and extremely wicked, wherefore his
nature was changed for the better, and he was made to
shine as a star in the heavens.” To this objection (or
objector), Maimonides replies as follows: “You appear to
have studied t h e matter superficially, and nevertheless you
imagine that you can understand a book which has been
the guide of past and present generations, when you for a
moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and ‘

glance over its contents as if you were reading a Iiistorical

work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts
and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be under-
stood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after
due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted
to man w‘as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him
before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the
PJ
 GENESIS
Bible states that ‘man was breated in the form and likeness
of God.’ O n account of this gift of intellect man was
addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it
is said, ‘And the Lord God commanded Adam’ (Gen.
2:16)-for no commandments are given to the brute
creation or to those who are devoid of understanding,
Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true
and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and
completely. The right and wrong are terms employed in
the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of
necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in
reference to the proposition ‘the heavens are spherical,’
it is ‘good’ or to declare the assertion that ‘the earth is
flat’ to be ‘bad’; but we say of the one it is true and of
. .
the other it is false. . Thus it is the function of the
intellect to discriminate between the true and the false-a
distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual
perception.” Obviously the distinguished Jewish commen-
tator is impressing upon our minds the fact that the true,
the beautiful, and the good are one; hence, that the phrase,
“the knowledge of good and evil,” as used in Gen. 2:17
and 3:5, meant with respect to man, the possibility of the
acquirement of all knowledge, including even illicit knowl-
edge. This, of course, would mean the potentiality of
omniscience. We reason, therefore, as follows: In the case
of our first parents, did they “fall” “downward,” or did
they actually “fall” upward? Was this a case in which
God “overruled’y the evil to bring about a greater good?
O n the view that man was originally in a state of untried
innocence, it would seem that holiness, which is to be
acquired only by active obedience to God, would be much
t o be preferred above an original innocence. This, no
doubt, is true. But what was to prevent Adam and Eve
from acquiring holiness by living in unbroken obedience
to God, without their having to make the pilgrimage
through a world of sin and death? Obviously, nothing-
96
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
that is, wothing h i t their ow17 wills. The choice, therefore,
of t h e “hard way” was their choice, for which they alone
were to be held accountable. The remedy provided by
God’s grace for this adverse tragic choice is t h e Divine
Plan of Redemption.
Moreover, whatever may be the significance of this
phrase, there is nothing in it t h a t is intrinsically repugnant
to a literal interpretation of the story of this particular
tree and its fruit. As stated heretofore, God has certainly
provided many trees, plants, herbs, etc., to serve as food for
man to maintain his physical vigor; certainly, in this special
case, He could have raised up a n actual tree bearing a fruit
designed to preserve his youth. If t h e metaphorical in-
terpretation presents itself t o us as the most obvious-
indeed it is difficult to see any relatioilship existing between
a real tree and knowledge-then the “tree of knowledge”
could be only knowledge itself under the symbol of a
tree and its fruit.
( 8 ) How Sataii cwated a false sense of secwrity in the
woii~aiz’sheal+. God had said she would die if she ate of
the forbidden fruit. This unequivocal Divine declaration
Satan boldly challeiiged: “Ye shall surely not die.” M.
Henry (CWB, 8 ) : “Hope of impunity is a great support
to all iniquity.” (As in our day, perhaps the strongest
support t h a t evil has in the world is t h e widespread notion
t h a t there is no hell, no future punishment for unforgiven
sin.) Eve’s tragic mistake had occurred in her temporizing
with the Devil a t the outset. M. Henry (CWB, 8 ) : “It is
a dangerous thing to treat with a temptation which ought
a t first to be rejected with disdain atid abhorrence. The
garrison that sounds a parley is not far from being sur-
rendered. ”
( 9 ) H o w double-dealing t h e Devil became in his accma-
tions. I t was a most dangerous snare which h e set for our
first parents, seeking to alienate their affections from God
and thus to draw them from their allegiance to Him.
97
 GENESIS
Thus has he always acted not merely content with accusing
the saints of unfaithfulness before God (Job 1:6-12, 2:l-6;
Rev. 12: l o ) , but also suggesting t o them harsh thoughts
of Him. (How many persons blame God for their
troubles?)
( 1 0 ) How artfully he led n p to his final and successful
@Peal. Skinner (ICCG, 75): “The spiritual part of the
temptation is now accomplished, and the serpent is silent,
leaving the fascination of sense to do the rest. The woman
looks on the tree with new eyes; she observes how attractive
to taste and sight its fruit seems, and how desirable for
obtaining insight (so most) or to contemplate.” “And
ye shall be as God”-this was the fatal appeal. Errett
(EB, I, 2 6 ) : “They will be independent of God-gods to
themselves, free from all restraints, and having all the
materials of happiness within themselves. It was an appeal
to selfhood against Godhood; and the eating of the for-
bidden fruit was, on the part of Eve and Adam, an
attempt to erect selfhood into Godhood. It was a re-
nunciation of Jehovah’s sovereignty, the lifting up of a
standard of rebellion against their Maker, who had been to
them the fountain of life and blessedness.” V a s there ever
a sin c o w m i t t e d that was n o t , at its root, the choice of self
and self’s w a y of doiizg thiizgs (righteomizess) above God
a i d God’s w a y o f doiizg thiizgs (righteozimess) ? (Cf.
Rom. 10:6-13). Back of the woman’s choice, of course,
was the final motivating urge that tipped the scales in the
Tempter’s favor, namely, the urge for illicit k.iqowledge
(cf. Deut. 29:29).
9. T h e Surreizder
“6 A n d w h e n the w o m a n saw that the tree was good
for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, a i d that
the tree was t o be desired to mzake oize wise, she took of
the fmit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also m t o
her hasband with her, and he did eat.”
98
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
1. N o t e the threefold appeal.
( 1 ) “And wkeii the w o m a f f saw”: what did she “see”?
-and how, or in what sense, did she “see”? Did she see
by ordinary physical vision “the eternal loveliness” of a
real tree, which made it “a delight to the eyes”? Or, as
Milligan suggests (SR, 43) : “What could she see but the
Serpent eating that same fruit?” According to this view,
in order to give weight to his infidel insinuations, the
Tempter actually ate some of t h e fruit himself, and thus
presented his own superior knowledge as proof of its
marvelous effects. But, the original word used here ( ~ a a h )
means not only to “lools,” “behol’d,” etc., but also to
“consider,” i.e., to contenzplate, to obtaiii insight, and in a
few instances, to “enjoy” (Eccl. 2 :1, 3 : 1 3 , 5 : 1 8 ) . Perhaps
the meaning that is intended for us here is that the woman
indulged the contemplation of some specific act of dis-
obedience to God, an act necessarily consummated in some
visible (overt) manner. Certainly what is being described
here is the lustful look: “an impure look, infected with
the poison of concupiscence” (Calvin) : a look made false
by germinating doubt, or perhaps by the enchantment of
curiosity. The contemplation, whatever the object may
have been, caused the woman to lose sight altogether of t h e
many blessings which she enjoyed in her Edenic environ-
ment, and to be consumed with curiosity with regard to
just this one restriction. But is not this propensity charac-
teristic of all of us a t times? Is i t not an essentially human
reaction-to chafe a t the slightest restriction upon our
personal liberty, no matter how lavish the privileges
showered upon us? It should be noted too that the charm,
the lure, whatever its character, now begins to have its
seiisual side (“good for food”) and its seiisiious side (“de-
light to the eyes”).
( 2 ) “That the tree was good for food.” The first
attraction or appeal was t h e physical, t h a t is, to t h e fleshly
appetites. This is perhaps the most elementary of tempta-
99
 GENESIS
tions. (Note the parallel in Satan’s temptation of Jesus,
Matt. 4:3--“command that these stones become bread”) .
Sin has the strange power of investing the object of desire
for the time being, whatever its true character, with un-
realistic, almost irresistible, attraction. Note the many
examples from human history and biography of men who
were enslaved to their physical appetites and passions, e.g.,
Alexander of Macedon (who a t the age of 3 3 , killed him-
self by dissipation), Lord Byron, Shelley, Poe, Oscar Wilde,
and many others, all brilliant men, but unable t o resist
the demands of fleshly appetities. “Take the Cash, and
let the Credit go”-the “philosophy” of Omar Khayyam.
As someone has parodied one of. the most common of
cliches: “Eat, drink, and be merry, and tomorrow ye die
of locomotor ataxia, cirrhosis of the liver, and delirium
tremens.’’ In ancient times, Aristippus of Cyrene was the
protagonist of the doctrines of libertinism, i.e., absolute
hedonism, living for the satisfaction of the pleasures of the
body.
( 3 ) “And t h a t it was a delight t o the eyes,” i.e., the
nestbetic appeal. Note that the first attractions were to
the senses of tnste and sight, that is, to sense-perception,
The charm had first its sensual and sensuozis aspects. The
aesthetic (artistic) appeal often accompanies the physical;
and, though apparently more refined, it is subtle and
powerful. It is the weakness that commonly haunts
geniuses, musicians, poets, artists, and eccentrics generally,
e.g., the advocates of the “simple life,” of the “philosophy”
of the “noble savage,” etc. Especially do individuals with
artistic talents seem to think of themselves as a breed
superior to the common herd and hence not to be inhibited
by the conventions and laws to which ordinary folk sub-
scribe and to which they must subscribe if they would
maintain social order and prevent the race from destroying
itself. (Cf. the Brook Farm experiment; Robert Owen’s
communistic colony a t New Harmony, Indiana; Thoreau’s
100
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
doctrine of “civil disobedience,” and other cccraclcpotyy
illusions of the post-Civil-War era and later). O u r
present-day offbeat generation seems to be especially pro-
lific of beatles, beatniks, “buggers” and bearded bums and
buffoons (all rigid conformists to specific mannerisms and
kinds of “dress,” etc.). It is a known fact, of course,
t h a t certain kinds of “music” and certain forms of the
dance tend toward flagrant immorality. Even the old
pagan Plato recognized this fact, teaching (Republic, 111,
39 8 -40 3 ) that those strains which arouse the passions, and
“relaxed strains” as well (“soft or drinking harmonies”) ,
should be prohibited (censored) ; the flute, said he, should
be banished, for the lyre and the harp. And in the Bacchae
of Euripides (Bacchus was the Latin name for the Greek
Dionysos, the god of wine), that great writer of tragedy
exhibited clearly the intimacy between orgiastic frenzies in
the name of “religion,” and gross forms of sex perversion
(notably, homosexuality) : Euripides “outFreuded” Freud
twenty-four hundred years ago. Incidentally, this same
association is well presented in the novel, E h z e r Gantry,
by Sinclair Lewis: indeed this is the only aspect of this
novel that is not sheer exaggeration; as a portrayal of true
Christian revivalism, the whole thing is a travesty.
(4) “And that the tree was to be desired t o make one
wise,” that is, the intellectual appeal. (a) This was the
ultimate and most potent attraction presented to the
woman by the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
It was the lure of the possibility of illicit knowledge, i.e.,
to be as God, and to know fully the true and the false, the
good and the evil, etc. And what is “illicit” knowledge?
It is not insight or wisdom beyond the adequacy of human
language to communicate and beyond the .ability of the
human intellect to understand (knowledge of the “inef -
fable”)? (Cf. Isa. 4j:18, 46:9-11, J j : 8 ; Heb. 4:12; Deut.
29:29; 1 Cor. 2 : l l ; Rom. 8:26-27). ( b ) Note the pene-
trating psychological process by which the Tempter seduced
101
 GENESIS
the woman. (No doubt he was using the power of sug-
gestion potently). (Should we not realize that he uses
the same power on human beings today, and especially on
those who seek to achieve the Mind of Christ and to do
the Will of Christ? Is it not significant that the Tempta-
tion followed immediately the Baptism of Jesus?) First,
he caused doubt to be formed in her mind; then he brought
in the appeal t o physical sense (the means to the raw
material of human knowledge) ; naturally, intellectual
thirst, craving for apprehension of the “more beyond,”
followed. Murphy (MG, 112) : “No startling proposal of
disobedience was made, no advice, no persuasion to partake
of the fruit is employed. The suggestion or assertion of
the false only is plainly offered; and the bewildered mind
is left to draw its own false inferences, and pursue its mis-
guided course.” ( c ) Again quoting M. Henry: “Satan
teaches men first to doubt, then to deny; he makes them
skeptics first, and so by degrees makes them atheists.”
This craving for illicit knowledge has led multitudes to
destruction in all ages of man’s life on earth. Theologians
have found it a most effective weapon for keeping Chris-
tians divided into a multiplicity of sects, and unchristian
teachers have used it extensively for pushing impressionable
young souls over the precipice of agnosticism. (Chesterton
(EM, 2 2 ) writes pointedly of the “sterile disputations of
the too subtle theologians.” Cf. the atheistic, agnostic,
“existentialist” quasi-theological clowns of our own time,
with their “demythologizing” mythology and their “God
is dead” fulminations, also the materialistic scientists who
consider it a mark of intelligence t o eliminate the word
“God” from human speech, ad infinitum, ud naztseam.)
“Scholarship” has become in our day a relative much-
overworked, and,ambiguous term. In most cases the sheer
“intellectualist” who prostrates himself in adoration before
the human intelligence (usually his own, in preference t o
all others) is a rather pitiful creature. “Publishing” has
102
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
become a fetish to college professors. The fact is, however,
t h a t if two-thirds of their publications (books, essays, re-
views, etc.) were piled high and burned, they would make
more literal light in their coiifl agration than they give
spiritual light in their content. In this writer’s opinion
there is no form of snobbery as obnoxious as intellectual
snobbery: the kind of snobbery that is characteristic of our
half -baked pesudo-“iiitellectuals.” I recall here a superb
example of t h e case in point, namely, t h a t of the late
Gertrude Stein (the “poet”?) Wh05e claim to notoriety
rests largely on her well-known insipid line, “A rose is a
rose is a rose.” In a recently published book, entitled
GeldllcEe Steiii; Her Life a n d Wovlt, Elizabeth Sprigge, the
author, who is not a t all an unfriendly critic, portrays Miss
Stein as a person fond of calling herself a genius, and quotes
some of the statements t h e “poet” made about herself, as
follows: “I know I am the most important writer writing
today.” “I lsnow I am doing inore important things than
any of m y coiitemporaries.’y “I am the only person who
has ever known what poetry is.’’ “Einstein was the creative
philosophic mind of the century and I have been the
creative literary mind of the century.” These bold asser-
tions could hardly be cited as examples of modesty, much
less of humility. (d) The excess of unbridled intellect
often leads t o the complete distortion of what is called
“academic freedom.” The fact remains, however, t h a t no
one has any right to substitute vice for virtue, injustice
for justice, lying for truth, in a word, license for liberty.
Liberty is to be enjoyed only within the circumference of
the moral law; when we abandon moral law, we have
nothing to guide us but our individual desires. As Jim
Casey put it, in Steinbeck’s Grujes of Wrath, “There aint
no sin, there aint no virtue; there’s just stuff people do.”
I have no right to stand before a class and teach t h a t two
plus two is equal to five, for the simple reason t h a t the
statement is not true. As Professor Hocking writes: “The
103
 GENESIS
right to error in the pursuit of truth does not include a
moral right to be deliberately in error.” We are reminded
here of Plato’s famous doctrine of “the lie that is in the
S O U I ,that
~ ~ is t o say, the error that is perpetrated through
ignorance. This, said Plato, is the most deceptive and
dangerous of all forms of untruth. Truth, moreover, is
never to be determined by a vote: physical truth is written
into the structure of the universe and moral truth into the
structure of human relationships. (e) When curiosity
becomes whetted by desire, the product is lust. So it was
with Eve-she had reached the stage of actually lusting
fw divinity, that is, to be “as God.” But lust “when it
hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is full-
grown, bringeth forth death.” Such is the pedigree of
Satan: Satan, lust, sin, death (Jas. 1:12-17). ( f ) Note
again the three appeals-the physical, the aesthetic, and the
intellectual. C f . 1 John 2:16--“the lust of the flesh and
the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life.” Note Jas.
1 : 1 ~for the decisive act of sin. All too often, the Bible
tells us, the human heart follows the eyes rather than the
reason (cf. Job 31:7, Eccl. 11:9). Note also Satan’s
appeals to Christ: to physical appetite (Matt. 4:l-4); to
the human desire for note or notoriety (by spectacularism,
Matt, 4:5-8); and finally to the human thirst for power
(Matt. 4:8-11); then again, in the Garden and on the
Cross, to the elemental human dread of sheer loneliness
and inevitable excruciating suffering and death (Luke
22:44, Matt. 27:46).
( J ) “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat.” (a)
“With the eye of soul as well as of body, she found a new
charm she had not realized before, as a tree in the setting
sun. There follows the cumulative force of the tempta-
tion-through bodily pleasure, mental delight, intellectual
hunger for wisdom, Her faith in God, unseen and almost
unknown, was weakened, and the chief barrier to sin was
weakened” (Peloubet) . A. Maclaren (EHS, in loco) :
104
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
“The confluence of all these streams made such a current
as swept t h e feeble will clean away; a.nd blinded, dazed,
and deafened by the rush of the stream, Eve was carried
over t h e falls as a man might be over Niagara.” (b) God
had said she would die, if she ate of t h e fruit of the Tree
of Knowledge; Satan said she would i i o t die, etc. The
choice was the woman’s, Had God interfered and kept
her from making the wrong choice, consistency would
require t h a t He do the sanie in all such cases, but this
would be His burglarizing of the human will and ruling
the moral world by coercion. Such Divine overpowering
of the human will would simply rneaii the elimination of
all human responsibility; as a result there could be no
morality, no righteousness, no holiness, no real democracy,
not even any science as free inquiry. Trueblood (PR,
251) : “Evil is the price we pay for moral freedom. . . .
the presence of evil is due, .riot to the n u t w e of things, h i
to the iintzkre of goodness. We can t a l e a step further
, . , by showing that tlie limitation i, inherent in the
natuiv of fieipsonality.” The sin of Eden was the conse-
quence of a free human decision t o disobey God, to become
a rebel against His sovereignty, just as the sin of the angel
Lucifer had been the consequence of his own free choice to
rebel against the Divine government in Heaven. As Gilson
puts it (SMP, 113) : “It was not the body that made the
spirit sin,” t h a t is, in Eve’s case; rather, “it was the spirit
t h a t brought death to t h e body,” We must remember, of
course, t h a t Satan and his rebel host sinned by their own
free choice and act, uninfluenced from without, and so
became totally depraved; our first parents, however, sinned
as a result of the seductive appeals of the Devil; hence it
was possible for Divine Justice t o extend mercy to fallen
man and to provide for him a remedy both for tlie guilt
and for t h e coilsequelices of sin; and so we have t h e im-
mediate oracular pronounceinent which contained implic-
itly the promise of the gift of human redemption (Gen.
105
 GENESIS
troubles.) It has been rightly said that apparent goods
give only the “alcoholic illusion” of well-being. It takes
a large measure of moral discernment to “put first things
first” (Matt. 6 : 3 3 ) . Confusion occasioned by ignorance,
by distorted thinking (rationalization, projection, identifi-
cation, compensation, fantasy, etc.) , by undisciplined
emotion, by a perverted will, or all of these, has beset all
of Eve’s posterity (Rom. 3 : 2 3 ) .
(d) Did a fall, then, actually take place in Eden? If
so, was it a fall downward or upward? Murphy answers
this question clearly (MG, 117) : “Man has now come to
the second step in morals-the practice. Thereby he has
3 : l J ) . Again quoting Trueblood (PR, 250) : “Here we
have the abiding Christian paradox of sin. We are to
blame for it, but zue cannot heal it. God did not cause it,
but He can forgive and overcome it.”
( c ) What essentially happened to the woman in Eden
when she ate of the forbidden fruit? I should answer that
her perspicacity became vitiated: whereas prior to her act
of disobedience she had the thought only of the real goods
of life (the supreme values, of which God is Himself the
Highest Good), now her understanding became darkened
by her mental confusion of apparent goods with real goods.
( A p p a r e n t goods are those which benefit only some human
power of appetite per se, that is, in isolation, such as desire
for narcotic drugs, for intoxicating liquor, indeed for all
forms of physical over-indulgence. Real goods, however,
are those which benefit the whole man, such as vision,
health, knowledge, faith, love, etc, Confusion regarding
these distinctions is the source of almost all of man’s
come to the knowledge of good and evil, not merely as an
ideal, but as an actual thing. But he has attained this end,
not by standing in, but by falling from, his integrity. If
he had stood the test of this temptation, as he might have
done, he would have come by the knowledge of good and
evil equally well, but with a far different result. As he
106
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
bore the image of God in his higher nature, he would have
resembled Him, not only in knowledge t h u s honorably
acquired by resisting temptation, but also in moral good,
thus realized in his own act and will. As it is, he has
gained some lrnowledge in an unlawful and disastrous way;
but he has also taken ‘in t h a t moral evil which is t h e image,
not of God, but of the tempter, to whom he has yielded.”
Yes, our first parents did “fall,” and they did “fall down-
ward,” in the sense t h a t their perspicacity became vitiated,
their sense of values distorted, and their moral integrity
depreciated. We might add here that no matter how man
may have first appeared on the scene, the first man in
whoin reason flowered (homo sg4ievs) faced this same
choice-that of valuing and developing, or that of de-
preciating and so losing, his potentiality of unbroken moral
integrity. What is pictured in the story of Adam and
Eve is t h a t which occurs in the life of every human being
of accountable age. As Cliesterton puts it in his inimitable
way (CDD, 8 9 ) : “Man is an exception, whatever else he
is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of
the dust. If it is not true t h a t a divine being fell, then
we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off
its head.”
(e) W. R. Bowie (IBG, 103) : “The truth of the won-
derful old drama of Eden is not that we are accounted evil
because somebody before us did evil. The truth dramatized
here is this: Human nature, made to go God’s way, has an
inveterate tendency to listen to t h e teniptation to go its
own way, and this rebellious way must have an evil end-
evil not only for the individual who has sinned but, in that
solidarity of human nature and human destiny which Paul
perceived, evil t h a t may involve many generations in its
long entail. For there are laws as old as creation which
we are meant to obey; and as sure as creation, if we disobey 8

them, we shall be in trouble. No circumstances outside us

can outweigh that inner fact. No blessings of environment
107
 GENESIS
or material opportunity can guarantee a happy life, not
even though they should be as complete as those of the
Garden of Eden. The disobedience of Adam and Eve is
the symbol of a fatal truth: We human beings are con-
tinually disobeying and rejecting the law of life; only
when our wills are kept in accord with the higher will of
God can life be blessed.”
( f ) Maimonides (GI?, 15-16) : “When Adam was yet
in a state of innocence and was guided solely by reflection
.
and reason (Psa. 8:6) . . he was not a t all able t o follow
or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the
most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of
nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he
could not even comprehend why it should be so. After
man’s disobedience, however, when he began to give way
to desires which had their source in his imagination and to
the gratification of his bodily appetites . . , he was pun-
ished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which
he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a
command with which he had been charged on the score
af his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the
apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of
what is proper and what improper. Then he fully under-
stood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he
had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed.”
(9) Unamuno (AC, 21-23) : “People speak of ‘the
struggle for life’: but the struggle for life is life itself,
and, in sum, life is struggle. Here is something to reflect
upon: this is what the Biblical legend in Genesis means
when it relates how death came into the world through the
sin of our first parents for that they wished to be like
gods, that is, immortal through absorption of the knowl-
edge of good and evil, of the knowledge which vouchsafes
.
immortality. And afterward . . the first death was a
violent one, that of Abel by the hand of his brother Cain.
And a fratricide too . .. Life is a struggle; solidarity to
108
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
produce life is a struggle and manifests itself by means of
.
a struggle. , . And if this be true of physical or corporeal
life, psychical or spiritual life in its turn consists of a
struggle against eternal oblivion.”
(h) Whitelaw summarizes as follows (PCG, 61 ) : “ (1 )
The assault was commenced before use and practice had
confirmed the first pair in obedience. (2) Satan began
with the woman who was the weaker of the two. ( 3 ) He
attacked her when alone-the best time for temptation.
Beware of solitude! (4) H e selected the best ground for
delivering his first blow-when the woman was in full
sight of the tree. ( j ) H e was extremely cautious so to
moderate his onset as not to excite alarm-beginning with
a casual inquiry. (6) He advanced by degrees as he
obtained a footing in the woman’s heart. (7) He never
revealed the proper scope and drift of his observations, but
always couched them in obscure and ambiguous language.
( 8 ) He never seemed to lead, but always to be following
the woman’s thoughts. (9) In all he said and did he
pretended to be seeking the victim’s good. (1 0) He chose
the best of all possible baits to captivate the woman’s fancy
and excite her cupidity-the hope of gaining knowledge.”
To read this summary is to realize that the Devil has
never changed his tactics. Most of us know from personal
experience that he still employs the same suavity, the same
cunning, the same deceit, ever promising so much but
giving so little. The best that Sataii has t o o f f e r inen f o r
serving him is the complete loss of God, aii endless hell.
(Matt. 2j:41-46; John 5:28-29; Rom. 2:4-11; 2 Thess.
1:7-10; Rev. Z O : l l - l J , 22:lO-lJ).
(6) “Awd she gave also uiito her husband with her, and
he did eat.” (a) Note that the Woman, instead of turning
her eyes away, saw; that she then took (the devil did not
put the fruit into her mouth by force-she took i t herself;
M. Henry (CWB, 9 ) : “Satan may tempt, but he cannot
force; may persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he
109
 GENESIS
cannot cast us down”) ; then she did eat (“the way of sin
is down-hill; a man cannot stop himself when he will”; it
is always best t o “nip mischief in the bud”). But her
seeing, taking, and eating did not end the matter,-&
gave also to ber h s b d n d with her, and be did eat, Sin’s
ramifications never terminate with the individual who
commits the sin; rather, its influences reach out in all
directions, and its consequences follow even into eternity,
up to the very throne of God for judgment. (b) “Her
husband with her.” What does the prepositional phrase,
“with her,” signify? (-i-) That the man had been present
throughout the entire temptation scene? Not likely-else
why did he not, as the head of the creation, and surely as
the stronger of the two, restrain the woman? It is hardly
conceivable that he should have stood by mutely and per-
mitted his companion t o sell them both out to sin. (-ii-)
That Adam arrived on the scene toward the end of the
temptation colloquy, and hence was without knowledge of
the real import of what was taking place? This, of course,
is conjecture, but this is what could have happened.
(-iii-) That it is the idea of conjugal oneness that is empha-
sized here? (-iv-) Or, as Lange suggests, that we have
here an abridgment of language: “after she had eaten, she
gave to her husband to eat thereof after her, or to eat
with her’’ (CDHCG, 2 3 0 ) . It could be that Adam’s
participation in the sin occurred after he had time to note
that the woman had not actually died and was himself
somewhat torn with doubt. (-v-) Or that Adam partook
of the forbidden fruit only when finally “overcome by his
wife’s importunity.” This phrase is from M. Henry’s
commentary: apparently Henry would have us think of
Eve as a first edition of Cleopatra or of Theda Bara.
He writes (CWB, 9 ) : “She gave it t o him, persuading him
with the same arguments that the serpent had used with
her, adding this to all the rest, that she herself had eaten
of it, and found it so far from being deadly that it was
110
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
extreinely pleasant and grateful.” Obviously, however,
iiothing is reported in the accouiit to indicate t h a t the
Woman’s power of persuasion was exercised unduly upon
her husband. All these views are conjectural. Then why
not accept what has been commonly believed by Jews and
Christians in all ages, namely, that Adam siiined with his
eyes wide open and out of affection and sympathy for his
bride. As a matter of fact, no other view can be har-
monized with Paul’s language in 1 Tim. 2 :13-1 1 and in
1 Cor, 11:8-9, (Note again here, one of our first prin-
ciples of interpretation-that t o get the truth of any
Scripture text, it must be in harmony with t h e teaching of
the Bible as a whole.) (-vi-) It seems obvious that Adam
preferred to part company with God rather than with his
wife. In all ages multitudes have chosen Hell with their
relatives above Heaven with God and His saints. Adam
had the opportunity of parting company with his wife
and so remaining obedient to God. Sapphira had the same
opportunity, but she, like Adam, preferred her spouse to
the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts J : l - 1 1 ) . Men refuse to
believe t h a t true religion, salvation, worship, obedience,
etc., are individual matters: but there is no such thing as
salvation by proxy (Rom. 14:10, 2 Cor. J:lO, Rev. 2 0 : 1 3 ) .
Lot seems to be the only Bible personage who exercised
good judgment in this respect: when the Divine command
came to him and his family to flee from Sodom, and not
to look back under any circumstances, Lot obeyed; he did
not even loolr back to see whether his wife was coming-
he was too busy working out his own salvation (Gen.
19: 12-29). Christ’s own teaching on this point is clear
and explicit (Matt. 10:34-39, Luke 14:26). (-vi;-)
Apparently the Apostle’s language in Rom. J : l 2 and in
1 Cor. 15:21-22 refers t o Adam in a generic sense, that is,
as the head of t h e physical creation. After all, does not
Adam become particularly blameworthy in view of his
headship of the race, a fact which surely must be regarded
111
 GENESIS
as enhancing his responsibility no matter what may have
been the circumstances attending his first sinful act?
10. The Birth of Conscience
“7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they
Knew thut they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves
together, and made themselves Gprons.”
(1) Their eyes were opened, that is, not a regaining of
the physical sense of sight (there is no evidence that this
had even been impaired), but the stirring of an inner
awareness by which they found things wrong which pre-
viously they had not 1ooked.upon as wrong. A conflict
had set in between the appeal of apparent goods and that
of real goods : their moral discernment was beclouded.
( 2 ) Skinner (ICCG, 7 6 ) : “A connexion between sexual
shame and sin is not suggested by the passage, and is besides
not true to experience. But to infer from this single effect
that the forbidden fruit had aphrodisiac properties is a
still greater perversion of the author’s meaning.”
( 3 ) It is a fact of human experience-one might well
say, a law of human character-that when you do another
man an injury you become, to some extent, his enemy. He
may not feel any animosity toward you, but you certainly
will experience the stirring of a sense of hostility toward
him; you will discover that somehow, in y o z ~a feeling of
separation, a schism, has arisen. This sense of hostility so
engendered thus becomes a kind of compensation for the
guilt feeling which your own act has produced in you.
This is a perfectly normal human reaction psychologically.
So it was with respect to the attitude of our first parents
toward God when they had sinned against Him. Whatever
the new knowledge was that came about as a consequence
of their disobedience, it included an awareness of the fact
that they were now separated from their Creator, and this
brought with it a sense of guilt and shame, as realized dis-
obedience to God must always bring. This is precisely
112
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
what we mean by the birth of conscience in Adam and Eve,
And it brought forth the attempted concealment, the
rationalizations and projections (to use Freudian terms) ,
and tlie braggadocio which they manifested when con-
fronted with the fact of their sin.
(4) They knew that they w c y e naked. Cornfeld (AtD,
16) : “This is a n answer to the question of why human
beings, unlike animals, were ashamed of nudity! obviously,
because of man’s new knowledge of decency, about which
animals and primitive man, in blissful ignorance, knew
nothing.” (Are not tendencies in dress toward nudity in
our time, and the actual practice [and defense of the
practice] of nudity, further indications of modern man’s
desperate attempt to reduce himself to the level of t h e
brute?) C.M.M. (NBG, 43, 44): “The Lord God had so
ordered it, t h a t in and by the fall, man should get what
previously he had not, and that was, u co~iscieiice,a knowl-
edge of both good and evil. This, man evidently could
not have had before. He could not have known aught
about evil, inasmuch as evil was not there to be known.
He was in a state of innocence, which is a state of ignor-
ance of evil. Man got a conscience in and by the fall, and
we find that the very first effect of that conscience was to
make him a coward. Satan had utterly deceived the
woman. He had said, ‘your eyes shall be opened, and ye
shall be as gods, knowing good and evil’; but he had left
out a material part of the truth, namely, t h a t they should
know good without the power to do it, and that they
should know evil without the power to avoid it. Their
very attempt to elevate themselves in the scale of moral
existence involved tlie loss of true elevation. They became
degraded, powerless, Satan-enslaved, conscience-smitten,
terrified creatures. ‘The eyes of them both were opened,’
no doubt; but alas! to what a sight!-it was only to dis-
cover their own nakedness, They opened their eyes upon
their own condition, which was ‘wretched and miserable
113
 GENESIS
and poor and blind and naked’ [Rev. 3 :171. ... Now, it
is well t o understand this; well, too, to know how con-
science works-to see that it can only make cowards of
us, as being the consciousness of what we are. Many are
astray as to this; they think that conscience will bring us
to God. Did i t operate thus in the case of Adam and Eve?
Assuredly not. Nor will it in the case of any sinner. How
could it? H o w could the sense of what I urn ever bring
me to God, if not accompanied by the faith of what God
is? Impossible. It will produce shame, self -reproach, re-
morse, anguish. It may also give birth to certain efforts
on my part t o remedy the condition which it discloses;
but these very efforts, so far from drawing us to God,
rather act as a blind to hide Him from our view.”
( r ) Fig-leaves us aprons. ( a ) Literally, girdles, or per-
haps what the anthropologist would call loincloths. The
common fig-tree abounded, of course, in Western Asia.
(b) Granting that nudity indicates here an awakening of
the libido as a phase of the new knowledge now attained
by Adam and Eve, it could be true, as one commentator
puts it: “The representation that the awakening of sex
consciousness was accomplished by a consciousness of guilt
thus contains a recognition of the fact that all human
relationships are disordered. Alienation from God has
brought with it alienation from man. Loneliness is the
specter which haunts unredeemed humanity” (Simpson,
IBG, J06). Someone else has written: “Having lost the
light of purity which had previously enswathed their bodies,
Adam and Eve began to realize that they were no longer
innocent. The brilliantly-lighted torch had become a
flickering taper!” ( c ) However, C.H.M. (NBG, 44-46),
bares the real moral (religious or spiritual) significance of
their act of resorting to an artificial covering, as follows:
“Thus, in the case of Adam and Eve, the discovery of their
nakedness was followed by an effort of their own to cover
it--‘they sewed fig-leaves together and made themselves
114
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
aprons.’ This is the first record we have of man’s attempt
to remedy, by his own device, his condition, and the atten-
tive consideration thereof will afford us not a little instruc-
tion as to the real character of human religiousness in all
ages, In the first place, we see, not only in Adam’s case,
but in every case t h a t man’s effort to remedy his condition
is based upon the sense of his nakedness. He is confessedly
naked, and all his works are the result of his being so. This
can never avail. I must know that I am clothed, before
I can do anything acceptable in the sight of God. And
this, be it observed, is the difference between true Chris-
tianity and human religiousness. The former is founded
upon the fact of a man’s being clothed; the latter, upon the
f a c t of his being naked. The former has for its starting-
post what the later has for its goal. All that a true Chris-
tian does, is because he is clothed-perfectly clothed; all
that a mere religionist does, is in order that he may be
clothed. This makes a vast difference, The more we
examine the genius of man’s religion, in all its phases, the
more we shall see its thorough insufficiency to remedy his
state, or even to meet his own sense thereof. It may do
very well for a time, it may avail so long as death, judg-
ment, and the wrath of God are looked a t from a distance,
if looked a t a t all; but when a man comes to look these
terrible realities straight in the face, he will find, in good
truth, t h a t his religion is a bed too short for him to stretch
himself upon, and a covering too narrow for him to wrap
himself in.” This story teaches us that in the final reckon-
ing, multitudes will awaken to a realization of the fact-
but o d y when it is everlastingly too late-that their re-
ligiosity has not been true religion, their piosity has not
been piety, their “morality” has not been the “fruit of
the Spirit” (Gal. j : 2 2 - 2 5 ) , their respectability has never
even approximated righteousness. Sinful man will discover
-when it is everlastingly too late-that the greatest crime
which he has perpetrated upon him& is the fallacy that
115
 GENESIS
he can lift himself up to fellowship with God simply by
tugging at his own bootstraps. He will discover-when it
is too late t o remedy his condition-that like Adam and
Eve, he has sold himself to the devil for nothing but a mess
of pottage (Rev. 6:16-17; Matt. 8:12, 25:30; Luke 13:28).
If the Bible makes anything clear a t all, it certainly makes
it crystal clear that to attain ultimate union with God one
must live the Spiritual Life (Gal. 5:22-25, Rom. 8 : l - l l ) ,
and to live the Spiritual Life the believer must be baptized
into Christ and so j u t on Christ (Gal. 3:27), to be clothed
upon with Christ, to be wrapped about with the mind
and will of Christ (Phil. 2:5; John 14:15; Matt. 7:24-27;
Heb. 5:9), to live the life that is hid with Christ in God
( C d 3:3, 1 : 2 7 ) , to grow in the grace and knowledge
of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18), and so to be changed
from glory unto glory (2 Cor. 3:18) until Beatitude is
achieved in the putting on of immortality, the redemption
of spirit and soul and body (1 Thess. 5 : 2 3 ) , the Life Ever-
lasting (cf. John 14:6, 5:28-29; Rom. 2:5-7; Rom. 8:18-
25; 2 Cor. 5:l-10; 1 Cor. 15:35-58; Rev. 6:16-17, 2 0 : l l -
1 5 , 21:l-8, 2 2 : l - 5 , etc.).
( d ) Leupold (EG, 154-155) : “That the sense of shame
should concentrate itself around that portion of the body
which is marked by the organs of generation, no doubt
has its deeper reason in this, that man instinctively feels
that the very fountain and source of human life is con-
taminated by sin. The very act of generation is tainted
by sin. If this scripturally portrayed origin of the sense
of shame be accepted as true, then all contentions of
anthropologists that shame is rather the outgrowth of in-
hibitions and custom fall away as secondary and incidental.
The scriptural account goes to the root of the matter.
The only gleam of light in the verse is the fact that where
shame is felt, the evildoer’s case is not hopeless. He is a t
least not past feeling in the matter of doing wrong. God’s
prevenient grace allows this feeling to arise.” (Why is it
116
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
t h a t the “sex” joke, whether “sophisticated” or downright
vulgar, always brings the raucous laugh? Dr. Will Durant
has rightly said that “the inhibition of sex is the first
principle of civilization,” that is, in more familiar terms,
the first step out of the barnyard.)
(e) Certainly the fact of conscience in man is conclusive
proof of his power of freedom of choice (free will).
Illingworth states the case clearly as follows (PHD, 3 3 - 3 5 ) :
“Freedom of the will does not mean the ability to act
without a motive, as some of its opponents still stupidly
seem to suppose. But it does mean the ability to create
or co-operate in creating our own motives, or to choose
our motive, or to transform a weaker motive into a stronger
by adding weights to the scale of our own accord, and thus
to determine our conduct by our reason; whence it is now
usually called the power of self -determination-a phrase
to which St, Thomas very nearly approaches when he says,
‘Man is determined by a combination of reason and appetite,
t h a t is, by a desire whose object is consciously apprehended
by the reason as an end to be attained, and he is therefore
self-moved.’ For instance, I am hungry, and that is simply
an animal appetite; but I am immediately aware of an
ability to choose between gratifying m y hunger with an
unwholesome food because it is pleasant, or with an un-
pleasant food because it is wholesome, or abstain from its
gratification altogether for self -discipline or because the
food before me is not my own. That is to say, I can
present to m y mind, on t h e occasion of appetite, pleasure,
utility, goodness, as objects to be attained, and 1 can choose
between them; nor is to the point to say that I am de-
termined by my character, for m y character is only the
momentum which I have gained by a number of past acts
of choice, t h a t is, by my own past use of my freedom; and
even so I ain conscious t h a t a t the moment I can counter-
act my character, though morally certain that I have no
intention so to do. This is briefly what we mean by free-
117
 GENE SIS
will; and it is a fact of immediate and universal conscious-
ness, that is, of my own consciousness, corroborated by the
.
like experience of all other men. . . For the sense of free-
dom is an immediate part of my consciousness. I cannot be
conscious without it. I cannot tear it out. It lies at the
very root of myself, and claims, with self-evidence, to be
something sui generis, something unique. So obvious is
this, that most even of those who regard it as a delusion are
obligated t o admit that it is a delusion from which there is
no escape. Further, upon this sense of freedom all law and
all morality depend. To deny this is to play with words.
And law and morality abundantly verify the legitimacy of
their basis by the progressive development in which they
result. For you cannot gather figs of thistles, or a rational
order of society from an irrational disease of mind. And,
finally, the sense of freedom has maintained itself, from the
dawn of history, against a spirit far more powerful than
any which philosophy can raise-the spirit of remorse.
What would humanity, age after age, have given to be
free from remorse? Yet remorse still stares us in the face,
overshadowing our hearts with sadness and driving its
countless victims into madness, suicide, despair, and awful
forebodings of the after-world. Men would have exorcised
it if they could; but they cannot. And remorse is only a
darker name for man’s conviction of his own free-will.”
Remorse is, of course, the inevitable concomitant of guilt
and shame, such as that experienced by Adam and Eve
following their disobedience to God.
11, T h e Heweizly Father
“8 A n d t h e y heard the voice of Jehovah God walking
in the garden in the cool of the day; aizd the mal? and
his w i f e hid themselves f r o m the presence of Jrhovah
God amongst the trees of the gardeiz.”
I n this exquisitely beautiful and touching-and tragic-
“human interest” story, we have the first appearance in
118
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
Scripture of the Heavenly Father of the Drama of Re-
demption, (Cf. Matt, 6:26, John 17:11, See also what is
commonly called the Narrative of the Prodigal Son: a com-
parison of Luke 1J:3-7 with verses 18-24 of the same
chapter is sufficient to show that this is designedly the
Narrative of t h e Forgiving Father, Cf, also Psa. 103:13-
18; 1 Cor. 10:13; John 3:16-17; Rev. 21:l-7, 22:1-$,)
(1) Note t h e fathedy motif which runs throughout
this phase of t h e narrative: vividly anthroponzorphic as it
is, at the same time it is, in every detail, accurately de-
scriptive of personal human experience. Note: “in the
cool of the day,” t h a t is, toward evening, when cooling
breezes usually sprang up: in these Eastern lands the “heat
of the day” was so intense t h a t only toward evening could
the master come out of his tent and walk about in comfort.
Lange (231) : “To this we may add: and when also there
comes t o a man a more quiet and contemplative frame of
soul.” Moreover, the language here clearly intimates this
to have been a daily custom in which the Heavenly Father
was accustomed t o meet His children and they in turn
were wont to look forward with pleasant anticipation to
these moments of sweet fellowship. Again, Lange ( 2 3 1 ) :
“We must regard the question here as unanswered, in what
respect the theophanies (which were mediated in all cases
through vision-seeing states of soul) are t o be distinguished
from real outward appearances in human form.”
( 2 ) Not so any longer-this once pleasant anticipation
on the part of our first parents of sweet communion with
God. No-the guilty pair sought to avoid personal con-
tact with Him; sin had separated them from Him; as the
Apostle put it many, many centuries later, they were now
alienated from God by their own evil works (Col. 1 : 2 l ;
Eph, 2: 1-3, 4:1 8 ) . As the voice of the Creator became a
call-a summons to the inevitable reckoning-they hid
themselves somewhere in the densest and darkest recesses
of the garden. Note t h e realistic psychological process
119
 GENESIS
exhibited here: from sin to gzdt, from guilt to shame,
from shame to feur, and from fear to flight. The perfect
love which casts out fear (1 John 4 : 1 8 ) had, in Adam
and Eve, become vitiated.
( 3 ) (a) The basic truth of this narrative is that the
morn1 problem of Eden is the moral problem of every
human life, its l a w my law, its temptation my temptation,
its sin m y sin, its Savior my Savior. This moral issue
obtrudes itself on every son and daughter of the human
race as the age of discernment or accountability is reached.
And the tragedy is that all have followed in the footsteps
of Mother Eve (Rom. 3 : 2 3 ) . (b) The choice made by
our first parents was the choice of self and self’s way of
doing things above God and God’s way of doing things.
It was the choice between the tree of life and the tree of
death. The tree was central, as the commandment was
central-the choice was between self and God. Taking
the one was rejecting the other: and this is what sin is
essentially. (c) This is the choice which every human
being must make. Everyone who has come in contact
with the Gospel message is thus brought face to face with
this choice-he cannot avoid it. It is the choice between
Christ and Satan. It is indeed a forced uption: he who is
not for Christ is against Him (Matt. 6:24, 1 2 : 3 0 ) . Just
as the man who says he has decided not to worry about the
weeds in his garden has already decided for the weeds (and
so is simply fooling himself), so the accountable person
who chooses to remain indifferent t o the claims of Christ
has in truth rejected Him altogether. There is no middle
g ~ o i ~ nhere.
d ( d ) Man’s experience in Eden is a true
picture of Everyman’s experience with sin. This, of course,
is the truly significant aspect of the story: all other aspects
-historical, allegorical, psychological, or what not-are
secondary to this. The lesson is clear: a t first Satan’s
suggestions are subtle and their true import double talk; but
once entertained, they develop into crime and vice and sin.
120
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
Just as the disease germ enters the body, and on finding
conditions favorable, germinates disease and death, so the
germ of sin entering the interior life of man and finding
conditions receptive, will sooner or later breed the lust that
flowers in the overt act of sin, We should avoid exposing
ourselves to needless temptations, because no human charac-
ter is strong enough to resist under all circumstances. W e
should keep our spirits so strong by feeding on the Bread
of Life that t h e germs of sin cannot find a breeding-place
in them (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; John 6:35-59). Bible study,
meditation, prayer, service, the ordinances, the worshiping
assembly-all these are means whereby the Christian draws
spiritual strength t o resist the wiles of the Evil One ( 2
Tim. 2:22; Jas. 4:7; Eph, 6:lO-16; 1 Pet. 5:6; 2 Tim.
2 : l 5 , 3:14-17; Matt. 6:13; 1 Thess. 5:17; Acts 2:42; Phil.
4:8; Matt. 27:31-40; Heb. 10:ZF; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 10:16,
11:23-30; Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-35; 1 Cor. 16:l-2; 2 Cor.
9:7; Rom. 12:l-2, etc.).
12. Pagaii Tfpaditions.
Pagan traditions of the Golden Age of mankind, the role
of the woman in the Fall, the human lust for omniscience,
the lost chance of immortality, etc., were widespread
throughout the Fertile Crescent. Traditions of erect ser-
pents, flying serpents, serpent dragons, and dragons in
general, also abounded throughout the ancient world.
(1) The eighth-century B.C. Greek poet, Hesiod, gives
us a vivid picture of the Golden A g e of man on earth, in
his poem Works a i i d Days, (lines 109-140). (See Loeb
Classical Library edition, Hesiod, The Homeric Hynziis and
Homerica, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass,)
( 2 ) Pandora’s Box, (Note $mi, “all,” and dow, “gifts”).
As the story goes, when Prometheus (“Forethought”) stole
fire from heaven, Zeus in revenge ordained Hephaestus to
malie a woman out of earth who by her beauty should
bring misery on the human race. Hermes took her t o
Epimetheus (“Afterthought”) who made her his wife,
121
 GENESIS
forgetting the advice of his brother Prometheus not to
accept any gifts from the gods. Pandora brought with
her from heaven a box containing all possible human ills;
overpowered by her own curiosity, Pandora opened the
box and the ills escaped and spread abroad over the whole
earth. (See Hesiod, Forks n i ~ dDays, j @ - I @ 5and
, Milton,
Paradise Lost, iv, 714 f f . ) ( 3 ) Tbc Goldeiq Apples of the
Hesperides. The Hesperides were nymphs who guarded
the Goldsn Apples which Ge (Earth) gave to Hera a t the
latter’s wedding to Zeus. They were closely watched by a
terrible dragon named Ladon. But, in fulfillment of an
ancient oracle, Heracles entered the garden by stealth and
slew this monster. The garden was supposed to be in the
extreme West on the river Oceanus. (4) ApoZlo and the
PythoM. The Python was said t o be a serpent bred of the
slime after Deucalion’s deluge. It was supposed to be
living in the caves of Mt. Parnassus. But Apollo, as the
bright god of heaven who detested all impurity, physical
and spiritual, four days after his birth (according to the
legend) slew the serpent with his arrows.
( r ) Cf. also the Assyrian-Babylonian great she-dragon,
Tiamat, allegedly slain by Marduk, the city-god of Babylon
(or by Ashur, the city-god of Nineveh); the Persian
Ahriman (also represented as a serpent in some accounts)
who is said to have deceived the first human pair and
drawn them away from the good god Ormuzd (or the
Persian good god Ahura Mazda who was said to exercise
a certain restraint upon the bad god, Angro Mainyu) ; the
triumph of the Hindu Krishna over the great serpent Kali
Naga achieved by tramping on the serpent’s head; the
Ugaritic flying serpent, Yam; the horrible Egyptian Set,
brother and enemy of Osiris; the equally horrible Siva of
Hindu mythology; the Biblical Leviathan (Isa. 27 :1) ; the
Canaanite sea-dragon Rahab (“arrogance,’’ cf. Job. 26: 12,
9 : 1 3 ) ; the Teutonic Odin (or Woden) and the Midgard
serpent; and in more modern times the story of Beowulf
122
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON E A R T H
and the Fire-dragon, t h a t of St, George and t h e dragon,
or that of St. Patrick and his makes, etc,, probnbly all
later aiid more corrupt editions of the original.
( 6 ) For versions of the human quest for illicit know1-
edge (omniscience), we have the theft of fire from heaven
by the archrebel Prometheus, also the Biblical account of
the attempt of early man to build a tower to heaven-the
Tower of Babel (Gen., ch, 1 1 ) . etc. (7) For traditions
of man’s “squandered opportunity for gaining immor-
tality,” see the Babylonian epics of Adapa and Gilgamesh,
especially.
( 8 ) What shall we say, then, of these “traditions,”
%gends,” “myths,” or whatever they may be called?
Cornfeld (AtD, 17), with reference to the flying serpents,
erect serpents, dragons, etc., writes: ‘There may be, how-
ever, a pure coincidence of symbolism with elements in
Gen. 3.” Were these stories %filtrations” into surrounding
traditions “of religious ideas properly belonging to the
Hebrews,” as Rawlinson has suggested? Or could they
not have been “infiltrations” from a strain of general
Semitic culture extending f a r back beyond the origin of
the ethnic group who came to be known as the Hebrews?
To my way of thinking, Kitto’s explanation is the most
satisfactory of all (DBI, 6 7 ) : “What shall we say, then,
to these things? This-that the nations embodied in these
traditions their remembrance of paradise, of the fall, and
of the promised salvation.” Every cownterf eit firesiLpfioses
a geniciue. Hence, we may reasonably conclude, it seems
to me, t h a t the universality of these stories of a Golden
Age, of man’s fall into evil ways and his consequent loss
of the direct attainment of immortality, of the activities
of serpents aiid dragons as instrumentalities of evil, includ-
ing also the universality of accouiits of the Flood and t h a t
of the practice of animal sacrifice, all points to an actual
common origin in the cradle of the race-the common
origin of which we have t h e facts presented in the opening
123
 GENESIS
chapters of Genesis and in which the spiritzial motif is the
essential aspect of each account-the originals having be-
come corrupted, and greatly debased, by oral transmission,
as the human race became diffused over the earth.
13. Satan’s Rebellion in Classic Poetmy
The poetic versions of Satan’s pre-mundane rebellion
are to be found, of course, in two of the greatest poems
of all time, namely, Milton’s Paradise Lost and Dante’s
Divine C o m e d y . Dante makes the creation of the angels
simultaneous with that of the universe, whereas Milton
puts their creation long ages prior to that of man. Milton
has often been criticized for. surrounding the Adversary
with such awesome associations that our abhorrence of him
is diminished; indeed Satan has been called the hero of
Paradise Lost. Dante’s portrayal of the Devil, on the other
hand, is fairly true to Scripture teaching. In Christopher
Marlowe’s Dr. Fazbstus, it is man’s thirst for illicit knowl-
edge that is emphasized, Faustus is a “grand figure” in
Marlowe’s play, “filled with a divine lust for what is more
than human and chafing a t the boundaries set to man’s
attainments. . .. a rebel against the Ultimate Authority,
willing to pay for knowledge with his soul, but moved by
heart-rending misgivings when he reconsiders the dreadful
pact” ( T h e Literature of England, Vol. I, 501, Woods,
Watt, et al, 4th Edition). Goethe, in his great work, Fazsst,
recounts Faust’s bargain with the Devil, who agrees to
claim his (Faust’s) soul a t the moment he (the Devil)
gives Faust something “worth living for.” Goethe pictures
Mephistopheles as saying to Faust :
“I to thy service here agree to bind me,
To r u n and never rest a t call of thee;
When over yonder thou shalt find me,
Thou shalt do as much for me.”
Faust, however, disillusioned in t u r n by knowledge, power,
and sensual pleasure, finds that he is truly happy only when
124
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
he becomes engaged in useful labor-labor t h a t benefits
his fellows-and so it is that God takes h i s soul at the very
moment the Devil is on the verge of claiming it.
A word of caution here: while Satan’s personality and
his existence are matters of fact, we must not go to the
extreme of giving ludicrous designations to him as did
theologians of t h e Middle Ages. In medieval times it was
thought actually possible for a man to sell his soul to the
Devil and t h a t such compacts were written in blood. As
‘
Strong writes (ST, 444) : “The cathedrals cultivated and
perpetuated this superstition, by the figures of malignant
demons which grinned from the gargoyles of their roofs
and the capitals of their columiis, and popular preaching
exalted Satan to the rank of a rival god-a god more feared
than was the true and living God. Satan was pictured as
having horns and hoofs-an image of the sensual and
bestial-which led Cuvier t o remark t h a t the adversary
could not devour, because horns and hoofs indicated not a
carniverous but a ruminant quadruped.” Such misrepre-
sentations of the actual nature and character of the Devil
led to gross superstitions and in this manner became as
prolific of skepticism about his actual existence as the
much-vaunted ultra-intellectualism of our day has been.
Satan has existence, real pe~soi7a1existence, but, paradoxi-
cally, the most effective weapon that he uses to bring
human souls into subjection to his will, is the device of
deceiving them into thinbing that he does not really exist.
Never forget-Satan is the implacable enemy of God, of
the Son of God, of the Holy Spirit, of all the saints of
God, of the Spiritual Life, of all that is good and true and
beautiful in the totality of being.
g :t :) :I- :i.

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

SpiritiLal Bliwdvess
Text: 2 Cor. 4:4. Spiritual blindness seems to have
125
 GENESIS
dominated by far the greater part of the human race from
its beginning. (Cf. Luke 8:4-15, Isa. 6:9-10, Matt. 13:14-
16, Acts 28:25-28). Men continue to be, in our time,
oblivious to the fact of sin and hence utterly indifferent
with respect t o their personal salvation, These facts raise
certain questions, as follows:
1. Who OY what is it that blinds men to the fact of their
lost condition (John 3:16-21, 5:40; Matt. 23:37). (1)
Not our Heavenly Father, of course: He would have all men
“to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth”
(1 Tim. 2:4). (2) Not the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior,
because He is the Lamb of G2d who sacrificed Himself
“to take away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 3:16; 1
Cor. 1:7;1 Pet. 2:21-25, 3:18; Rev. 13:s). ( 3 ) Not the
Spirit of God, because He has revealed to us the Plan of
Redemption in which “all things that pertain unto life and
godliness” are made so clear that “wayfaring men, yea fools,
shall not err therein” ( 2 Pet. 1:3; Isa. 35:8-10; John 16:7-
15; Acts 1:8, 2:l-4, 2:38, 8:26-40; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Pet.
1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:21). ( 4 ) Our text reveals the fact that
man alone is not responsible for this state of things (cf.
Eph. 6:lO-16, 1 Thess. 5:4-8, 1 Tim, 2:13-15, 1 John
3:7-8). ( j ) It reveals the fact that man is blinded by
the seductive influence of another person, designated “the
god of this world” (cf. 1 Pet. 5 : 8 ; John 8.44, 12:31; 1
John 3:s; Eph. 6:lO-12; Rev. 9:11, 20:10, 12:lO-12).
2. To what facts does Satan came men to be blind?
(1) T o the fact that the world is under Divine condemna-
tion (John 3:17-21; Rom. 3:23, 5:12-21). ( 2 ) TQ the
fact of their lost condition in the sight of God (Luke 13:3,
Acts 17:30). Sinful man actually resists believing that he
is under Divine condemnation and in danger of perishing
in hell with the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; Rev.
20:11-15, 2 1 : s ) . ( 3 ) To the fact of God’s immeasurable
love as manifested in providing the Atonement for sin
(John 3:16, 1 John 3 : l ) . (4) To the fact of Christ’s
126
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
willingness to suffer and die f o r inan’s redemption (John
15:13; Phil, 2 : I - l l ; Heb, 9:27-28, 12:3-2). ( I ) To the
commands of the Gospel (Acts 2:38, 16:3 1; John 3:5;
Matt. 10:32-33; Luke 13:3; Rom. 10:9-10; Gal. 3:27),
Think how they ridicule the Lord’s ordinances, Christian
baptism above all others! (6) To the consequeiices of
their own sins (Gal. 6:7-8, Rom, 6:23)
3. How does Safaii go aboid his diabolical activity of
’
bliizdiiig i v e n t o t h h lost state? (1 ) Through the allure-
ments of the flesh (Matt, 26:41; John 6:63; Rom. 7:14-
25; Rom. 8 : l - 1 0 ; Gal. I:16-24; 2 Cor. 7 : l ; Eph. 2 : l - 1 0 ;
2 Pet. 2:18-20). “The lustful thought, the disrelish for
heaven, the positive dislike for goodness, t h e deep despon-
dency, are, with a thousand other infirmities and sins,
traceable to the connection of the spirit with the body;
and in proportion as that body is subjugated by discipline,
the power of these sins will be weakened, and when the
spirit will be freed from the present corruptible body, it
will be wholly liberated’’ (Exell). (We must, however,
note the distinction made in apostolic teaching, especially
in the Pauline Epistles, between t h e body ( s o m a ) and the
“flesh” ( s a w ) , as we shall see ( i n f w , ) ( 2 ) Through
mental suggestion. Strong (ST, 43 5-454) : “Recent psychi-
cal researches disclose almost unlimited possibilities of in-
fluencing other minds by suggestion; slight physical phe-
nomena, as the odor of a violet or the sight in a book of a
crumpled roseleaf, may start trains of thought which
change the course of a whole life. A word or look may
.
have great power over us. , If other men can so power-
fully influence us, it is quite possible t h a t spirits which are
not subject to limitations of the flesh may influence us yet
more.” Men seem to be incapable of realizing the full
measure of the power of suggestion to which they are con-
stantly being subjected, especially of subliiizinal suggestion,
as by the press, radio, television, and all media of mass
communication. ( 3 ) Through our outward circum-
127
 GENESIS
stances, such as Eve’s alluring fascination for her husband,
such as Rebekah’s deception of Isaac, motivated by her
undue preference for Jacob above Esau. Multitudes put
allegiance to earthly relatives above allegiance to Christ
(Matt. 19:29, Luke 14:25-27). (4) Through sudden and
unexpected calamities, through disillusionments, long ill-
nesses, or adversities of many different kinds. How many
a mother on losing a baby, will exclaim, “Why did God
do this to me?” She overlooks the fact that death is no
respecter of persons. The fever, the pestilence, may fall
on the best ordered house and the most abstemious body.
The Bible is realistic: it never deceives us; it tells us
explicitly that in this world we must expect tribulation,
that God’s rains fall on the just and the unjust alike, that
the wheat and the tares must grow up together until the
judgment (John 16:33; Matt. 5:4j, 13:24-30). We hear
professing Christians say, “Why did God take this loved
one from me?” God is not a murderer, but Satan is-he
was the first murderer (John 8 : 4 4 ) , Satan, not God, is
the one ultimately responsible for death, for all the sin,
sickness, suffering, and death in our world (Jas. 1:12-15).
(Cf. Heb. 2:14-1j, 1 Cor. 16:25-26). Death, the limit of
Satan’s power, is, however, only the beginning, so to speak,
of God’s power. Death is Satan’s last and most terrible
weapon (Job 1:12) ; however, the resurrection of Christ
has disarmed even death of its sting (1 Cor. 15:25, 26;
I j : j 4 - ? 6 ) . God, while permitting these things to be,
evidently in order that Satan’s true character may be made
manifest to both angels and men, has “with the temptation
made also the way of escape” (1 Cor. 10:13) : that Way,
of course, is Christ (John 1 4 : 6 ) .
4.Whn.f m e the weapons that Satan z m s in blirm’ing imn?
(1) W e a l t h (Acts 8:20, 1 Tim, 6 : l O ) : Money-wealth in
general-is of n o value in itself, but is of value only for
what it will buy; hence, it can never be an end, but is
always a means. Nor can we afford to overlook the fact
128
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
t h a t one of the things money can buy is power, prestige,
etc. ( 2 ) Faiue. For world honor, the satisfaction of
personal ambition, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler,
each turned our earth into a shambles. Fame, however,
does not exist in a person, but only in t h e opinions of
others about him, ( 3 ) W O ~ ~wisdom.
/ J J Francis Bacon:
“A little philosophy inclinetli man’s mind t o atheism, but
depth in philosophy briiigeth men’s minds about to re-
ligion,” Or, as Alexander Pope writes:
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not t h e Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”
(Cf. 1 Cor. 1:lS-25, 2:6-16; Acts 17:16-23; Rom. 1:22;
1 Cor. 3:20; 2 Tim. 3:16), (4) Pcnoizal opinions-idols
of the market place, cliches bandied about by t h e thought-
less in all ages; also t h e fulminations of the half-baked
academicians. ( 5 ) Si/bstitntes. The Devil whispers into
our ears that there are many institutions as good as the
church. Those who substitute t h e club or the lodge for
the church, social service for t h e preaching of the Gospel,
respectability for regeneration, good citizenship for the
obedience of faith, are bound to be tragically disilltisioned
on the final day of accounting (Acts 17:30-31). ( 6 )
Pwjidice. This is one of Satan’s most effective weapons;
by means of it he bolts church doors, closes the ears of
sinners and steels their hearts against the love of God.
( 7 ) Traditioualisnz, t h a t is, allegiance to cults, customs,
systems, etc., whether or not they are defensible. This is
one of the chief factors in maintaining denominxt.ionalism,
“My daddy was a Democrat, my granddaddy was a Demo.-
crat, and I’m a Democrat too.” ( 8 ) Self -~ig/3teousness.
The man who stays out of the church because “there are
hypocrites in it” is like the man who refuses to let the sun
shine on him because it has some spots on it. As one of
129
 GENESIS
our oldtime evangelists put it: “You can’t hide behind a
hypocrite unless you are smaller than he is.” The moralist
is our modern Pharisee who stands afar off and thanks
God he is not like other poor mortals. The self-righteous
man is more unlike Jesus Christ than any other man on
earth-he stands below the drunkard who wallows in the
gutter, who, though too weak to resist temptation, is willing
to acknowledge himself a sinner.
“The moral man came to the judgment,
But his self -righteous rags would not do;
The men who had crucified Jesus
Had passed off as moral men, too.”
Coizclusiou: The Christian cannot afford to fondle
Satan. One cannot control a rattlesnake with a cream
puff. T o flirt with temptation is to play with fire: this
was Eve’s first mistake. The Bible warning is clear: flee
temptation, avoid the very appearance of evil (1 Tim.
6:3-11, 2 Tim, 2:22, 1 Thess. 1:22, Jas. 4:7).
The Fall and Restoration of M a n
1. There were three distinct developments involved in
man’s fall, namely, ( I ) a change of heart, brought about
by giving heed to Satan’s specious lies; ( 2 ) a change of
disposition or will, a repentance unto death ( 2 Cor. 7:lO) ;
and finally ( 3 ) a change of relationship. The change of
relationship did not take place, however, until the overt
act of disobedience was performed. Not until they had
actually eaten the forbidden fruit did the guilty pair feel
their guilt and shame, realizing that the glory of the Lord
had departed from them.
2. God, in His infinite wisdom, has ordained that man
shall return t o fellowship with Him over precisely the same
road that he traveled in breaking that fellowship originally.
Every conversion to Christ involves three distinct changes,
as follows: ( I ) a change of heart, actualized by faith (Heb.
11:6; Acts 16:31; John 20:30-31; Rom. 10:17, 10:9-10;
130
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
Matt, 10:32-33, etc,) ; ( 2 ) a change of disposition or will,
actualized in rejeiitai?ce (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38, 17:30,
26:18), which is repentance unto life ( 2 Cor. 7:9-10) ;
and ( 3 ) a change of wlafioiirhij), actualized in bnjtism
(Matt, 28: 18-20). The eating of the forbidden fruit in
Eden was a violation of imifive law, the kind of law t h a t
is designed to prove or to disprove (to test) one’s faith;
t h e kind of law t h a t rests solely on Divine authority, t h a t
requires a n act to be done because God coiizi~zai~dsit.
Hence the penitent believer must actualize his reconcilia-
tion with God (2 Cor, 7 :18-20, Gal. 3 :27) in the positive
ordinance of Christian baptism (Acts 22 : 16, 2 : 3 8 , 8 : 3 8 ;
Rom. 6 : l - l l ; Col, 2:12; John 3 : j ; Heb. 10:22).
We give our hearts to God in f n i f b (mental assent to
the Christian creedal formula, Matt. 16: 1 6 ) , plus co7viizit-
~ i z e n tto Christ and His word (Rom. 10:9-10, 1 2 : l - 2 ) ;
our lives in ~ e p e i i t a n c e ; our entire being, including our
bodies, in baptism (Heb. 10:22), We are baptized out of
the kingdom of this world, under the rule of the god of
this world (2 Cor. 4:4), into the authority (sovereignty)
of the Absolute Monarch of the Kingdom of Heaven, the
Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 2:36, 1 Tim. 1:17, 1 Cor.
1 5 :20-28) , Penitent believers are baptized in the iiaiize of
-that is, by the autho~~ity of-Jesus Christ according to
the prescribed formula, “into the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, Matt.
28:18-20) and so are translated “out of the power of dark-
ness” “into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col.
1 :13). Baptism in water is the transitional act (1 Pet.
3 : 18-22).
A. Campbell (CS, 263) : “Views of baptism as a mere
external and bodily act, exert a very injurious influence
on the understanding and practice of men. Hence many
ascribe to it so little importance in the Christian economy.
‘Bodily exercise,’ says Paul, ‘profits little,’ We have been
taught to regard immersion in water, into the name of the
131
 GENESIS
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as an act of the whole
man-body, soul, and spirit. The soul of the intelligenr
subject is as fully immersed iizto t h e Lord Jesus, as his body
is immersed in the water. His soul rises with the Lord
Jesus, as his body rises out of the water; and into one Spirit
with all the family of God he is immersed. It is not like
circumcising a Hebrew infant or proselyting to Moses a
Gentile adult. The candidate, believing in the person,
mission, and character of the Son of God, and willing to
submit to him, immediately, upon recognizing him, hastens
to be buried with the Lord, and to rise with him, not
.
corporeally, but spiritually, with his whole soul. . . There
is no such thing as outward bodily acts in the Christian
institution; and less than is all others, is the act of immer-
sion. Then it is that the spirit, soul, and body of man
become one with the Lord. Then it is that the power of
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit comes upon us. Then it is
that we are enrolled among the children of God, and enrcr
the ark, which will, if we abide in it, transport us to the
Mount of God.”
Sin a i d Its C u r e
1 John 1:7. Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4), The essen-
tial principle of sin is selfishness. There never was a sin
committed that was not the choice of self above God.
Various remedies for sin have been proposed by cultists
and reformers : e.g., education, mental healing, psycho-
analysis, “salvation by character,” Comte’s “religion of
humanity,” “social regeneration,” etc., Mrs. Eddy’s fol-
lowers presume to solve the problem of sin by pronouncing
it “illusion of mortal mind”-an explanation that explains
nothing. Obviously, an illusion must be an illusion of
something.
The fact remains that there is o n l y one remedy for sin-
the blood of Christ by which Divine Atonement was pro-
vided for the sin of the world (John 1:29). and there is
132
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
only one inethod of presenting a n d applying this remedy,
viz., the preaching of the Gospel for t h e obedience of faith
(1 Cor, 1:21).
1, Paitk takes away t h e love of sin, by focusing the soul,
its affections and aspirations, upon the One Altogether
Lovely (John 1 4 : l ; Song of Sol, 1:16; Acts 16:31, 11:9,
26:18; HeL, 11:6; Gal, 2:20, 3:2).
2. Rejewtaiice does away with t h e practice of sin (Luke
13:3, 11:18-19; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:lO).
3. Baptism transfers t h e believing penitent out of a state
of alienation into a saved state, or a state of reconciliation
with God ( 2 Cor. j:18-20). This formal transfer is im-
plicit in the baptismal formula, “into the name of the
Father and of t h e Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28 : 19,
Acts 2: 3 8 ) . Baptism is essentially a positive ordinance; it
does, however, exemplify the moral virtue of the obedieiice
of f a i t h (Rom. 6:17, Jas. 2:26).
“Spiritually, baptism is into Christ (Rom. 6: 3 ) , just as
the physical act is into the water, Thus we become im-
mersed, submerged, or hidden in Him, and put on Him
(Rom. 6: 3 ) . While we wear Him, the world looking a t
us will see, not us, but Christ. The thinner our garment
the greater will be t h e prominence of our sinful selves.
Spiritually, too, baptism is a death (Rom. 6 : 8 ) , not of t h e
body, nor of the mind or faculties, h i t of a life of sin.
Following this death is a burial (Rom. 6:8), closing the
chapter of our past carnal life just as the burial of the
body closes the chapter of our mortal life, In Christ, the
fruitful, is a planting (Rom. 6: j) , of the seed of a new life
(Rom. 6 : 4 ) , which is ours after having been born again
(John 3 : 5 ) , begotten of the Spirit of God. Whereas we
were children of wrath, we are now sons of God, joint-
heirs with Jesus Christ, having risen with Him (Col. 2:12)
through the faith of the operation of God. Baptism physi-
cally is a washing of the body, but spiritually it is a com-
133
 GENESIS
plete cleansing from sin (Tit. 3:5) .” (Cecil J. Snow,
The Australian Christian).
4. Pardon removes the guilt of sin. A pardon is always
issued a t the seat of authority. Divine pardon is not some-
thing done in us, but something done 212 heaven for 21s. In
its legal sense, it is called jzisfificatiorz (Rom. 5 : l ; Gal.
3:26-27; Rom. 4:25, 5:18), Pardon takes place in the
mind of God, and the act of pardon is explicitly associated
with the transitional act of baptism (1 Pet. 3:19-22; John
19:34; 1 John 5 : 5 - 9 ; Gal. 3:27; Acts 2 : 3 8 ) .
5 . Resurrection, followed by glorification, will eradicate
the consequences of sin, the chief of which is death (Rom.
8:11, 1 Cor. 15:20-23, Phil. 3:20-21).
C0rtclusio-n. Redemption will not be complete until God’s
saints are clothed in glory and honor and incorruption
(Rom. 2: 5-7) ; redeemed in spirit and soul and body (1
Thess. 5:23, 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 2 Cor. 5 : I - 8 ) . Then, and
not until then, will sin be eradicated both in its guilt and in
its consequences (Rev. 2 1 : 1-4) .
“In the land of fadeless day,
Lies the ‘city four-square.’
It shall never pass away,
And there is ‘no night there.’
God shall ‘wipe away all tears,’
There’s no death, no pain, nor fears;
And they count not time by years,
For there is ‘no night there,’ ”
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWELVE
1. Explain the coiqtextztal reference of the word t d d o t h ,
as used in Genesis.
2. Define the two kinds of evil.
3 . Who were the four actors in the Tragedy of the Fall?
4. Why do we say that a fall necessarily occurred in the
birth of a conscience in man?
134
THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
?. What is kitiiiaii i i a t i t w , according to Gen, 2:7?
6 . Explain the racial, bipartite, personal, social, and
moral aspects of human nature.
7, What is the essential difference between innocence
and holiness?
8 . Name and define t h e two essential properties of per-
sonality.
9 , What are t h e four general outreaches which man has
manifested throughout his entire history as man?
10, What does Cassirer mean in designating homo sapiens
an animal synzbolicwz?
11. State the various symbolic interpretations that have
been given to the “serpent” of Gen. 3.
12. What correlation does exist between the account of
the serpent in Genesis and the Cult of Fertility that
was widespread in the ancient pagan world?
13. Why must we reject the view that the Narrative of
the Woman and the Serpent is a parable?
14. What does t h e phrase “a living soul” (Gen, 2:7) teach
us about the nature of a human being?
15, What, according to Kaufmann, are the differences
between the pagan concept of the demonic and that
of Biblical teaching?
16. How, according t o the same writer, does Biblical
cosmology, creationism, and monotheism differ from
those of t h e pagan mythologies?
17. Why and how does what is called “folklore” often
reveal profound truth?
18. What, according to the Epistle of James, is the
pedigree of evil?
19; What is t h e basic assumption of the critical (analyti-
cal) theorists? Explain how this arbitrary assumption
creates “perplexity” (as Skinner would have i t ) with
respect to the story of t h e serpent.
135
 GENESIS
20. State the reasons why we regard the serpent as a real
creature.
21. State the reasons why we hold that a superior intelli-
gence was operating through the instrumentality of
the serpent?
22. Who was this superior being? How does Jesus de-
scribe him (John 8:44) ?
2 3 . Explain Luke 10: 1 8 in this connection.
24. Recall the Scriptures in which Jesus recognized the
existence of Satan and his rebel host,
25. Who was Satan originally?
26. What is suggested by the word “subtle” in Gen. 3 : 1 ?
27. On what grounds do we hold that the Devil has real
personal existence?
28. Are there any valid reasons for rejecting the idea of
Satan’s existence in our day?
29. What details of the Narrative of the Fall demonstrate
the Tempter’s subtlety?
30. What details demonstrate his diabolical malice?
3 1, What details demonstrate his diabolical cunning?
32. Why was the Woman not frightened on hearing
articulate speech from the serpent’s mouth?
3 3 . State probable reasons why Satan chose to approach
the Woman through the instrumentality of a brute.
34. What correlation is suggested here with the primitive
belief in the kinship of all living things?
3 5 . What probable significance is there in the fact that
Satan used the name Elohim instead of the name
Yahweh for Deity.
36. What was the element of suggestiveness in the first
words of the Tempter?
37. How did Eve reply?
3 8 . What was her first and fatal mistake?
136
THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
39. What did she do with the Word of God in her reply?
40. What did Christ do with God’s Word in defeating
Satan?
41, What should this teach us about faithfulness to the
Word?
42. What clause did the Woman add to the prohjbitory
enactment?
43, What word did she omit in repeating it?
44, What did this omission indicate?
4J. What significance is there in the fact that Satan
ignored. the many privileges of the Edenic environ-
ment and pointed up only the one limitation? What
weakness in human character does this illustrate?
46. Explain the significance of the location of the for-
bidden tree “in the midst of the garden.” What
fundamental truth does this phrase probably symbol-
ize?
47. Explain what we mean in classifying the prohibitory
injunction regarding the Tree of Knowledge in the
category of positive law.
48. Can we rightly hold that this positive precept was
the cause of the disloyalty of Adam and Eve? What,
then, did it elicit?
49. Explain Satan’s cunning (1) in his increasing bold-
ness, (2) in his bold challenge of the integrity of
God’s Word, ( 3 ) in his brazen challenge of God’s
motives, (4) in the ambiguity of his assertions.
50. Show how he played on the meaning of the word
“die, ”
71. Explain how double-dealing he became in his accusa-
tions.
~ 2 Explain
. how artfully h e led up to his final and suc-
cessful appeal.
137
 GENESIS
5 3 . Explain how he created a false sense of security in
the woman’s heart and the lesson this has for us.
54. Explain the probable full significance of the phrase,
“the knowledge of good and evil.”
5 5 . What was the basic issue in this whole affair of the
Woman and the Old Serpent?
56. What is probably implied in the verb “saw” in Gen.
3:6?
57. What was the first appeal (temptation) ?
5 8 . What was the second appeal?
59. What was the third appeal?
60. What special import is there in the fact that it was
the intellectual appeal which turned the tide in
Satan’s favor?
61. Explain fully the implications of the phrase, “the
excess of unbridled intellect.”
62. Explain the statement: “Evil is the price we pay for
moral freedom.”
63. Explain: “The presence of evil is due, not to the
nature of things, but to the nature of goodness.”
64. In what final act was the disobedience of our first
parents consummated?
65. What does Gen. 3:6 imply with respect to Adam’s
part in this transaction?
66. What is the teaching of the New Testament with
respect to Adam’s part in the affair?
67. Explain: I n Eve’s case, “it was not the body that
made the spirit sin,” rather, “it was the spirit that
brought death to the body.”
68. Did a fall actually take place in Eden, and was it a
fall “downward” or “upward”?
69. Explain how the distinction between afiparent goods
and real goods has so much to do with human
morality.
138
THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
70, Why do we say t h a t the choice faced by Adam and
Eve was the choice t h a t the first homo sapieiis had
to face? What i s the relation of this fact to the
birth of conscience?
71, What upiversal truths-truths with respect to all
mankind-are embodied in this story of the Fall?
72, Re-state Unamuno’s view of “the struggle for life,”
73, What is the “best’’ that Satan has to offer men for
serving him?
74, What is the probable significance of the clause in v.
7, “the eyes of them both were opened”?
75, What did this new “knowledge” probably include?
7 6 , What is it that invariably separates man from God?
77. What generally follows this sense of separation psycho-
logical1y ?
78. What correlation was there between the new “knowl-
edge” which came to our first parents after their
disobedience and their own first realization of their
nudeness?
79. What conclusions are justified as to the relation be-
tween the role of sex and this new “lcnowledge”?
80. In what ways did all human relationships become
disordered after the Fall?
81. Explain what is probably meant by “aprons” in v. 7 .
82. Re-state C.H.M.’s forceful distinction between the
“clothing” of the true Christian and that of the mere
moralist or “religionist.” Does this mean that it is
utterly impossible for any man to lift himself up to
reconciliation with God simply by tugging a t his
own bootstraps?
8 3 . Summarize t h e details which point u p the fact of
the birth of conscience in our first parents.
84. What psychological relation must exist between
human free will and human conscience?
139
 GENESIS
8 5 . Summarize Illingworth’s presentation of the fact of
freedom of will in man.
86. By what one circumstance is human free will limited?
87. Explain what is meant by the fufherly inotif in vv.
8-1 3 .
88. Why do we speak of this phase of the narrative as
anthropomorphic in character? Does this fact in
any sense lessen its spiritual integrity and significance?
89. Explain: “The moral problem of Eden is the moral
problem of every human life.’’
90. Explain what is meant by a “forced option.”
91. What lessons especially should we derive from the
story of Eden with respect t o (1) fleeing from
temptation and ( 2 ) keeping ourselves spiritually
strong?
92. What means are at our disposal for maintaining and
increasing our spiritual strength?
93. Recall pagan traditions of the .Golden Age of man,
the Woman’s introduction of sin into our world, and
human lust for illicit knowledge.
94. Recall the pagan traditions of man’s warfare with
serpents, dragons, etc.
95. What is the most reasonable view of the relation of
these pagan versions to the Biblical narrative of these
matters ?
96. In what two great poems do we have the literary
versions of Satan’s apostasy?
97, What is the common criticism of Milton’s presenta-
tion of Satan’s career?
98. Compare Marlowe’s version of Dr. Faustus with that
of Goethe.
99. What medieval superstitions flourished with respect
to the Devil and demons in general ? How were these
expressed in medieval architecture?
140
 THE BEGINNING OF MORAL EVIL ON EARTH
100, Who blinds men to the fact of their lost condition?
101. To what facts does he cause them to be blind?
102, How does he go about the diabolical business of blind-
ing men to the facts of their lost state?
103. What are the weapons t h a t he uses in creating and
fostering this spiritual blindness?
104. In what respect is worldly wisdom one of the most
potent of these weapons?
105. Who is said in Scripture to exercise the power of
death (Heb. 2:14)? What do we learn about this
from the first two chapters of Job?
106. Correlate the steps in the fall of man with those of
his restoration (salvation),
107. What is sin, according to Scripture? What are the
various factors (changes, motives, acts) in the remedy
for sin and in the application of chis remedy to the
cleansing of the soul?
108, Is there any possible remedy for sin for Satan and his
rebel host?
109. What special aspect of the sin of our first parents
makes it possible for God t o be just in providing for
them the Plan of Salvation?

141
 PART THIRTEEN:
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
(Gen. 3:Y-24)
Recapitulation
1. Aldo J. Tos writes interestingly as follows (ABOT,
61) : “The account of the Fall is an artistic presentation of
the psychology of temptation. If we compare the various
steps that were involved in that primeval drama with the
moments involved in an individual’s personal temptations,
we can say with all honesty: ‘The author knew what he
was talking about.’” Tos then proceeds to designate these
cc
steps” as follows: 1. Temptation makes its appearance”
(v. 1 ) ; “2. Delay occurs” (vv. 2, 3 ) ; “3. The person is
fooled” (vv. 4, 5 ) ; “4. Desire is aroused” (v. 6a) ; “5. Sin
is committed” (v. 6 b ) ; “6. Effects are felt” (v. 7 ) ; “7.
Remorse is experienced” (vv. 7, 8 ) ; “8. Tension results”
(vv. 9 , 1 0 ) .
2. As stated heretofore, by physical evil is meant disease,
suffering, death (of the body), etc. Leibniz, the German
philosopher, classified evil in three categories, namely,
moral evil (sin), physical evil (suffering,) and meta-
Physicdl evil (finitude), Can we reasonably attribute evil
to any subhuman creature or event? For example, ca-
tastrophes in nature, such as hurricanes, floods, earth-
quakes, epidemics, and the like: surely these are neither
good nor evil in themselves; obviously, they are per se
amoral. The same is true of plant and brute creatures:
their activities can hardly be said to be either moral or
immoral: it is clearly evident that they are incapable of
moral responsibility, and hence of moral action. T o the
extent that such factors affect human life adversely, they
can be said to bring physical evil on human beings, al-
though they are themselves involved in no guilt in so
doing. A great deal of sheer ccwumgushyy(“mere mental
mush”) has been parroted in recent years about alleged
cc
cruelties” in nature (including cruelties to animals) .
142
TIlE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
Tennyson, for example, wrote (17%Memoriaw) of “Nature,
red in tooth and claw with ravine,” etc. Man, if he lives
up to the ideal of manhood (humanity that is truly
humane) , is certainly obligated t o treat animals without
cruelty insofar as it is possible for him to do so. Animals,
however, do not have rights, for the simple reason they
have no capacity for understanding what either right or
obligation means; hence we do not haul aniinals into court
and charge them with crimes. They lack the prior de-
liberation, freedom of action, and voluntariness of action,
all of which are necessary t o produce the bunzan, act.
Again, animals do not have the capacity for suffering
cruelties such as m a n has: in t h e brute, memory is short-
lived, as a rule, death usually occurs quickly, and real
mental anguish apparently is nil. The fact t h a t one
species must feed upon another is a part of t h e order of
nature, not a violation of it: in t h e case of every living
thing, individual disease and death have their respective
causes. Order is nature’s first law because it is ordained
by the Will of the Eternal Lawgiver. (If anyone doubts
this, let him jump off a twenty-story building!) As the
nuclear physicist and Nobel prize winner, Arthur Holly
Compton, once put it: “A God who can control a universe
like this is mighty beyond imagination.”
3 . It should be re-emphasized here that the origin o f
evil cannot be a matter of human speculation: the facts in
the case lie wholly outside the areas of human science and
philosophy. It must be evident to any thinking person
t h a t because sin could have originated only in disobedience
to divine law, God, therefore is the sole source of truth
respecting this important problem. (People are prone to
speculate about the origin of evil: why do they hardly ever
give any thought to t h e fact of the source and t h e exis-
tence of t h e good?) The problem of evil is not a matter
for human (philosophical) speculation t o resolve: it is,
rather, a inattei? o f f a c t based 011 irewaled t ~ u t h . Philoso-
143
 GENESIS
phers should not scorn the story of man’s first disobedience
as related in Genesis, for two reasons: first, the account is
the only one that is in harmony with universal human
experience, and second, because philosophy has nothing
whatever to say on this subject that has equivalent reason-
ableness and reliability.
4. Another fact should be re-emphasized a t this point,
namely, that the content of the opening chapters of
Genesis in re creation, temptation and sin, and the begin-
ning of redemption, has a universality in relation to human
experience that is not to be found in any other source.
These chapters are no more Hebrew in coloring than they
are Persian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Chinese, German, or
American, etc. The notion that the events narrated in
these chapters are to be understood as Hebrew “myth-
ology” is not a reasonable one, and cannot be supported by
appeal to the relevant evidence.
“9 A n d Jehovah G o d called unto t h e man, and said
unto him, W h e r e art thou? I O and he said, I heard
t h y voice in the garden, Grid I was afraid, because I
aum ngked; and I hid myself. 11 A n d he said, w h o told
thee t h a t t h o u wast ndked? Hast thou e d e n of t h e
tree, whereof I commanded thee t h a t t h o u shouldest
not eat? 12 A n d t h e m a n said, t h e w o m a n w h o m t h o u
gavest to be with m e , she gave m e of the tree, and
I did eat. 13 A n d Jehovah God said unto the w o m a n ,
W h a t is this that thou bast done? A n d the w o m a n
said, T h e serpent beguiled m e , and I did eat.”
1 . “ T h e Inquest” (this felicitous subhead is borrowed
from Skinner, ICCG, 7 6 ) .
(1) Note that their eyes were now opened (v. 7), not
the Physical eye, but the eye of conscience: not sight, but
insight. They now k n e w they were naked: not that God
had told them so-they knew it intuitively; and this
knowledge brought with it a sense of guilt and shame,
144
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
and in true human fashion they tried to cover their shame
by running away and hiding themselves, But this at-
tempted concealment only served to make their act, in-
cluding the shame itself, even more shameful. There is
no possibility of recovery from the guilt and consequences
of sin by trying to hide it or t o hide from its aftermath;
the only possible way t o recovery is by catharsis: by an
“out with it” to God, Nothing short of this will drain
the burden of guilt and shame from the sinsick soul (Prov.
28:13), It is far better for a person, when something
obtrudes itself t h a t is not right, instead of trying to hide
it or change it or even embrace it, to go to his spouse and
declare it, or to his neighbor and straighten it out (Matt.
3:6, 18:15-17; Jas. 5:16), or t o his God and talk it out
with Him. Note God’s promise to His saints, 1 John 1:9:
the only method by which the Christian can obtain for-
giveness daily is by open confession to God in prayer.
( 2 ) Note again the fatherly motif. M e have here one
of the most illuminating instances of anthropomorphism
in t h e Bible (following closely on t h e equally significant
instance of it in Gen. 2:7, the picture of the Divine in-
breathing of spirit into the lifeless corporeal form of man,
constituting him a psychosomatic unity) . Anthropomor-
phism means explaining God iv terms of huinaiz experience.
Albright (FSAC, 265) : “It cannot be emphasized too
strongly that the anthropomorphic conception of Yahweh
was absolutely necessary if the God of Israel was to re-
main a God of the individual Israelites as well as of the
.
people as a whole. . . For the average worshiper, it is
very essential t h a t his God be a divinity who can sympa-
thize with his human feelings and emotions, a being whom
he can love and fear alternately, and to whom he can
transfer the holiest emotions connected with memories of
father and mother and friend. In other words, it was
precisely the anthropomorphism of Yahweh which was
essential to the initial success of Israel’s religion. , , , All
145
 GENESIS
the human characteristics of Israel’s deity were exalted;
they were projected against a cosmic screen and they
served t o interpret the cosmic process as the expression of
God’s creative word and eternally free will.” ( a ) Note
well God’s questions: Adam, where art thou? Have you
eaten of the tree of which I commanded you you should
not eat? (This last “added to remove the pretext of
ignorance,” Calvin). Not that God did not know the
truth about these matters: of course He knew. Adam’s
absence was clear evidence that something had gone awry:
the fact is that he was hiding, not in humility, not through
modesty, but from a sense of guilt. God knew all this:
nothing is ever concealed from Him, (Heb. 4:12). Hence
His queries were like those of an earthly father seeking
to bring his erring child to a confession that would remove
the guilt and shame of wrongdoing, make forgiveness
possible, and so’ lead to the restoration of a fellowship that
had been disrupted. The questions were fitted to carry
conviction to the man’s conscience (cf. Acts 2 : 3 7 ) and
effect in him a change of heart. But Adam was already
<t
too f a r gone” from his Heavenly Father (cf. Heb. 12:9).
(b) The Father must now “seek” the Man who was not
there, as he had been previouly, when H e called. Like
every other call of God, the call was only for man’s sake,
even as the laws of God invariably contemplate and seek,
not His own good, but man’s good. Lange (CDHCG,
23 1) : “The Good Shepherd seeks and finds the lost sheep;
the sinner must seek and find God; the relation must be
an ethical covenant relation.” Delitzsch: “This word-
where art thou?-echoes throughout the whole human
world, and in each individual man.” Lange adds: “That
is, in a symbolical sense, the passage denotes every case of
a sinner seeking the divine home.” (c) Why did God call
t o Adam in view of the fact t h a t Eve had been the first
t o sin? Of course, the Woman here is included in the
generic sense of man, i.e., mankind. The call here, how-
146
TI-IE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
ever, was directed to the individual man, The reason is
clear, namely, t h a t Adam as the head of t h e household
(1 Cor. 11:8-9, Eph, 5:23) was answerable for Eve’s act
of disobedience, even though he hiinself had been ensnared
by it ( 2 Cor. 11 :3 , 1 Tim, 2: 13-14) : “the ethical arraign-
ment for t h e complaint against t h e wife proceeds through
.
Adam’’ (Lange) As a matter of fact, Adam, the supposed
stronger of the two, was probably t h e inore responsible be-
cause of this fact,
2. The Uiicovering of Guilt. (1) Note the man’s eva-
siveness. God’s first question did elict a n admission of a
sort-cold, unfeeling, reluctant, half -hearted (v. 10) ;
certainly not a full and free confession, t h a t which Yah-
weh was seeking, which would have merited forgiveness.
(2) God’s second question elicited only sheer effrontery on
Adam’s part. His reply was saturated with all t h e impu-
dence of a rebellious spirit (v, 12). ( 3 ) We have here
a vivid example of the Freudian “def eiise inechaiiism”
which goes under the m i n e of fii~ojection. (Incidentally,
t h e Bible is t h e world’s best textbook on psychology.)
Adam did not admit any personal responsibility or guilt-
not a bit of it! Said he, The Womaiz you gave ine got
ine into this mess. Soinehow I get t h e feeling t h a t h e
emphasized the “you” in this impudent reply, as if to say,
You, God, gave this Woman t o me; in the final analysis,
Yon are t h e one to bear the brunt of the responsibility in
this business! What uninitigated gall! (4) Note that
the Woinaii followed the exainple set by her spouse: she
“passed t h e buck” to the serpent: “the serpent beguiled
me, and I did eat.” That is, Don’t blame me; blame t h e
old siiake t h a t seduced me! A forced confession, lacking
even a semblance of coiitrition!
(5) And the tragedy if it all is t h a t from that day to
this, the posterity of Adam aiid Eve-the whole huniaii
race--has been walking in their footsteps (Rom. 3:23).
Mali’s favorite vocation throughout the ages has been that
147
 GENESIS
of “passing the buck.” He blames, and keeps on blaming,
the Unconscious, the Subconscious, the hormones (in
ancient times it was the “humors”) , pre-natal impressions
(Dianetics) , an “unpleasant childhood,” or perhaps a
“mental block,” for his derelictions. There are thousands
who pass their responsibility on to some elusive non-entity
which they designate Fate, Fortune, Destiny, etc. Other
thousands are still blaming Adam: “the old Adam in me.’’
And multiplied thousands in all ages even blame God for
their misfortunes: “Why did God take my child from
me?” etc. The fact is they bring the greater number of
their misfortunes on themselves. But their delusion of
projectiof$ allows them to indulge orgies of self-pity while
they put the blame for their misfortunes and frustrations
on others. The last thing that man seems willing to do is
to march up to the judge, and say to Him, Yes, I did it,
with m y own little hatchet. Yet this is precisely what a
man must do if he hopes to drain off the burden of his
guilt (cf. the story of the Prodigal Son, Luke 1 5 : 17-19) .
Men will go to any extreme, it seems, to avoid saying,
“I have sinned.” This is catharsis: and this is the neces-
sary first step on the road to reconciliation and restoration
to fellowship.
Bowie (IBG, j 0 6 ) : “Oscar Wilde said once, ‘I can resist
everything except temptation’: and underneath the wry
humor of that there is sober fact. Many people act as
though no one could reasonably be supposed to resist temp-
tation, But stop the sentence in the middle. The woman
tempted me, and. , . , And what? There is the crux of
human character. Temptation is an element in every
human life and comes to everybody. But it is always
possible to end the sentence in another way. This and that
tempted me, but I was not persuaded. That is the sort of
answer made by souls who are not paper to be scorched
by fire but iron to be purified and hardened by it. The
fact that evil is possible is no alibi for choosing it.” Again
148
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
(ibid., j07) : “We kiiow as well as Adam t h a t alibis will
not work. The God we must meet a t the end of the day
will not Le put off by references to other people’s sins or
by coinplaiiits about the universe. Wheii He speaks it will
not be in terms of they, or it, but you.”
(6) The forbidden fruit turned sour, as it always does
when one puts inordinate desire above the right and good.
Wheii illicit indulgence of jhysical ajjetkte takes over,
the result is certain to be moral corruption and physical
decay (Gal. 6:7-8, Rom. 8:6-8). Wheii inordinate desire
and quest for illr’cit knowledge takes over, the product is
bound to be a spirit seared by false pride and facing the
inevitable doom of incarceration in Hell with the Devil
and his ilk. Hell will be populated with people who have
traveled this egoistic way: the sure way to insensibility to
God and all Good (Rom. 2:4-11, 2 Thess. 1:7-10). This
writer learned long ago from personal observation and
experience t h a t this consuming thirst for illicit knowledge
is a thousand times deadlier to the human spirit than per-
haps any other form of motivation. (Cf. the Seven Deadly
Sins: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth
-all personified in Spenser’s great poem, The Faerie
Queene. Note t h a t pride stands a t the head of the list:
and what form of pride can be more destructive morally
than pride of intellect?) See JB (17, n.) concerning the
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: “This knowledge is
a privilege which God reserves to himself, and which man,
by sinning, is to lay hands on, 3 : 5 , 22. Hence it does not
mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor
is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had
it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is
the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is
evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral
independence by which man refuses to recognize his status
as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s
sovereignty, a sin of pride. This rebellion is described in
149
 GENESIS
concrete terms as the transgression of an express command
of God for which the text uses the image of a forbic!c!en
fruit.” These comments are especially helpful: they point
u p the fact that man’s first sin was-in essence-but a
repetition of Satan’s pre-mundane rebellion. We are rc-
minded here of the words of Berdyaev, the Russian philoso.
pher: “When man broke away from the spiritual moorings
of his life, he tore himself from the depths and went to
the surface, and he has become more and more superficial.
When man lost the spiritual center of being he lost his OWI
a t the same time.” Man is n o t the principle of his own
origin, nature, or destiny.
“14 Aid Jehovah God said unto the serpeizt, Be-
cause thou hast doize this, cursed art thou above all
cattle, a i d above every beast of the field; zipon th?
belly shalt thou go, and dzist shalt thoai eat all th6
days of thy life: 1 5 arid I will Piit ennzity betzvecii
thee a i d t h e avonmiz, aiid betweel$ thy seed aizd her
seed: he shall bruise thy bead, nizd thou shalt bruise
his heel. 16 Uizto the auoinaiz be said, I will greatly
inailtiply thy Paiiz and thy coizceptiorz; iiz f i n i n thou
shalt briizg f o r t h childreri; and thy desiiee shall be
to thy hzisbaizd, and be shall nile over thee. 17 Aid
uizto A d a m he said, Becnzise thoii hnst hearkened ziizto
t h e voice of thy wife, and bast enteiz of the tree, o f
which I coiniiznizded thee, saying Thou shalt mot eat
of it: cursed is the ground f o r thy sake; in toil shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 1 8 Thorns also
and thistles shnll it briizg fovth t o thee; and thozi shnll
eat of the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy
face shalt thou eat bread, till thozi return ziiito the
g v o w d : f o r out of it thou avast taken; for dust thou
art, and zmto dust shalt thou retairm.”
1. T h e Threefold Peizalty: That Proi~o~iriced012 the
Serpent (Serpeiztkiiid). Whitelaw (PCG, 6 5 ) : “The
150
THE BEGINNING OF PIlYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
cursing of the irratioiial creature should occasion no more
difficulty than the cursing of the earth (v. 17), or of the
fig tree (Matt. 11:21), Creatures can be cursed or blessed
oiily in accordaiice with their natures. The reptile, there-
fore, being iieither a moral nor responsible creature, could
not be cursed in the sense of being made susceptible of
misery. But it might be cursed in the sense of being
deteriorated in its nature, and, as it were, consigned to a
lower position in tlie scale of being.” The use of such
phrases as “all cattle” and “every beast of the field” (v.
11) proves the reality of the curse upon the literal serpent.
Was this a “flying serpent” (cf, Isa. 27:l) ? Or, was it a
creature temporarily endowed with the power to stand
upright? Some have thought so. Some have held that
this creature underwent some kind of transformation of
its external form; others, t h a t tlie language of the curse
here signified t h a t henceforth the creature was “to be
thrust back into its proper rank,” “recalled from its
insolent motions to its accustomed mode of going” (Cal-
vin). “Upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou
eat”-it was doomed henceforth to wind about on its
belly, and so its food would be mingled with the dust of
the earth. “Dust shalt thou eat” describes a condition of
shame aiid contempt: to “eat the dust” or to “bite the
dust” is a phrase which even today expresses humiliation
aiid degradation.
( 2 ) V. 17, Here we have a twofold oracle: ( a ) a
direct prognosis of the natural enmity that should exist
henceforth between mankind and the serpentkind: gen-
erally speaking, when a man sees a snake, he feels a n
impulse, spontaneously it would seem, to crush i t beneath
his heel; (b) a prophetic reference to the spiritual warfare
which has been waged from t h a t day to this between the
Old Serpent, the Devil, and t h e Seed of the Woman. This
oracle could well have pointed forward to the age-long
conflict (-i-) between the Devil and the whole huinan
151
 GENESIS
race (John 14:30, 2 Cor. 4 : 4 ) , (-ii-) between the Devil
and the Old Covenant people, the fleshly seed of Abraham
(Job. chs. 1, 2; 1 Chron. 2 1 : I ; Zech. 3:1-5)y (-iii-) be-
tween the Devil and the New Covenant elect, the ekklesid
(“called out”), the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-
29, Eph. 3:8-11, Jas. 4:7, 1 Pet. 5:8-9). On the principle
so frequently emphasized in the present textbook, namely,
that any Scripture, to be understood fully, must be har-
monized with Bible teaching as a whole, undoubtedly this
oracle referred in its primary sense to Messiah, Christ, the
Seed of Woman in a special and universal sense. Rother-
ham tells us (EB, 36, n.) that most of the ancient trans-
lators rendered the original word here, not as “bruise”
but as He writes: “The same word is used here
in the two clauses. ‘Most of the ancient translators render
it by crushing’-Kalisch.” Cf. Rom. 16:20, where the
Greek word syntribo, meaning to “shatterYy’cccrush,yyis
used. In The Jerusdem Bible, it is given thus: “I will make
you enemies of each other, you and the woman, your off-
spring and her offspring. It will crush your head, and
you will strike its heel.” The JB adds (19, fn.) an in-
teresting comment: “It is the first glimmer of salvation,
the prodo-euangehm. The Greek version has a masculine
pronoun (‘he,’ not ‘it’ will crush . . .), thus ascribing the
victory not to the woman’s descendants in general but to
one of her sons in particular: the words of the Greek
version thus express the Messianic interpretation held by
many of the Fathers. The Latin version has a feminine
pronoun (‘she’ will crush , . .), and since in the Messianic
interpretation of our text, the Messiah and his mother ap-
pear together, the pronoun has been taken to refer to Mary;
this application has become current in the Church” (that
is, the Roman Catholic Church). In view of the fact that
Redemption is the essence of God’s Eternal Purpose, and
since this Redemption is actualized, on the Divine side, by
Messiah’s death and burial and resurrection, and since,
152
 THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
furthermore, Jesus of Nazareth is the only Person who ever
appeared in the world of whoin it is specifically (and
authentically) testified (by iiispiration of the Spirit) that
iiicariiately He was made the Seed of Woman exclusively,
for the specific purpose of makiiig possible, through His
own death and burial and resurrection (I Cor. 15: 1-4),
this Redemption, for all men who accept the terms, it
surely follows t h a t the sublime oracle in Genesis must be
understood as referring especially to Jesus as God’s Only
Begotten, Messiah, Christ, Redeemer of mankind (Cf. Gal.
3:16, 4:4-1; Matt. 1:18-21; Luke 1:26-38; John 1:l-24,
1:29, 3:16, 17:4-1; Col. 1:12-23, 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:18-21;
Rev. 12:7-12, 19:ll-16, 2O:l-3, etc. Refer back to Part
XI s7/p7w.) (c) Sliiiiner (ICCG, 8 1) suggests, in this con-
nection, what he calls “the more reasonable view of Cal-
vi11,” namely, that the passage (Gen. 3 :l s ) “is a promise
of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ as
its divine Head” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-28;
Eph. 2:l-10, 3:8-12, etc.).
(d) Incidentally, coiitroversy as to whether t h e Hebrew
ulmah and the Greek paidbenos should be translated “young
womaii,” “maiden,” or “virgin” (cf. the Parthenon, the
Temple of Athelia Parthenos, Athelia t h e Virgin, on the
Athenian Acropolis) is purely academic. The language
of Matthew and Luke with reference to the conception
and birth of Jesus is too clear and positive to justify any
such controversy (Matt. 1:18, 24; Luke 1:34, 35). Be-
sides, translation as “young woinan” or “maideny7does not
in any wise exclude the fact of virginity. Cf. also Paul,
in Gal. 4:4. It is frequently parroted about t h a t Paul
never taught the Virgin Birth. But Paul certainly empha-
sized our Lord’s pre-existence (Col. 1 :13-17, 2:9). And
it must be recalled, in this connection, that Luke was
Paul’s traveling companion throughout the latter’s ministry
(2 Tim. 4: I I ) , and it is Luke, the “beloved physician”
(Col. 4:14) who gives us clearly and positively the facts
I 1J3
 GENESIS
of this mysterious case. If the Apostle did not accept the
Virgin Birth why on earth did he not set Luke right about
the matter? (Luke certainly means to tell us, 1:35, that
it was the Holy Spirit of God who created the physical
nature of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin.)
( 3 ) Thus it will be seen that in the oracle of Gen.
3:15 we have the first intinzutioiz of Redemption. This is
the one optimistic note in the context of gloom, decay, and
death. In this spiritual conflict of the ages (often desig-
nated “The Great Controversy”) , the Old Serpent’s seed
will strike or bruise Messiah’s heel (Matt. 23:33, John 8:44,
1 John 3:10), signifying a mean, insidious, vicious, yet
generally unsuccessful, warfare (the heel is not a par-
ticularly important part of the anatomy) ; whereas the
Seed of the Woman shall ultimately crzcsh the Old Ser-
pent’s head (the ruling part of the person and personality),
signifying the ultimate complete victory of Christ over all
evil (Rom. 16:20, 1 Cor. 15:25-26, Phil. 2:9-11, Matt.
25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-11, 2 Thess. 1:7-10, 2 Pet. 3:l-13,
etc.).
( 4 ) The Bible is the most realistic book in the world:
it deals with man just as he is: it never deceives him. It
tells him bluntly that he is in sin, in a lost condition, and
in danger of perishing in Hell; a t the same time, it offers
the Remedy (John 1:29, 1 John 1 : i ’ ) , and the means of
applying it (1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4;
Acts 2:38; Rom. 2:8, 10:9-10; 1 Pet. 4:17). In character
delineation, not for one moment does it turn aside to hide
the sins and vices of the men and women who, so to speak,
walk across its pages. On the contrary, it faithfully de-
picts their vices as well as their virtues, whether reprobates
or saints. The Bible pictzwes life j u s t us men live it and
have lived it throughout the uges: it is pre-eminently the
Book of life. A t the same time, it is, from beginning to
end, unfuilingly optinzistic. Not even the breath of an
intimation that evil might possibly triumph in the end,
154
 THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
occurs in it; rather, it is expressly declared, again and
again, t h a t the ultimate victory of God and t h e Good is
certain. (Isa. 46:8-10;1 John Y:4; Matt, 24:29-31,16:27-
28; John Y:28-29,16:33,11-25-26;Rom. 8:37-39;Phil.
2:9-11;1 Cor. 15:20-28,YO-58; 2 Cor. Y:l-10;Rev. 7:14,
2I : 1-7,22: 1-5) , In striking coiitrast t o Oriental cults,
which are uniformly pessimistic, viewing life as illusion
( m a y a ) and salvation only as escape from it, the Bible is
always optimistic, presenting life as a divine gift (Gen,
2:7,Rom. 6:23) and mail’s greatest good, and salvation
as the flowering of the Spiritual Life in Christ (Col. 3:3)
into timeless fellowship with the living and true God (Exo.
3:14,John 4:24,1 Cor. 13:9-12,1 John 3:2,Rev. 14:13).
This ultimate victory is implicit in t h e Genesis oracle.
Our God has spoken: His counsel will stand, and He will
do t h a t which He pleases, declaring the end from the
beginning (Isa. 46:8-11): The Seed of the Woman shall,
in the Day of the Consummation (Acts 3:20-21),crush
t h e Old Serpent’s head. This is the very heart and soul
of the Eternal Glad Tidings (Rev. 14:6,Luke 1:lO-14,
Rom. 1:16,Rev. 20:7-14).
Note well, in this connection, t h a t the Gospel is said to
have been in the mind of God from “the beginning,” from
“before the foundation of the world” (Isa. 46:9-11;Rom.
8:28-30;Eph. 1:3-14,3:8-12;1 Pet. 1:lO-12, 18-20).
Note also the progressive unfolding of this Messianic an-
ticipation. It is rightly said (1) that f r o m Adam t o
Ahaham we have the Gospel in God’s Eternal Purjose
(Gen. 3:14-15; Gal. 4:4;Isa. 7:14;Mic. 5:2; Matt, 1:18-
25; Luke 1:26-38;John 1:l-4,1:18, 17:Y;Phil. 2:Y-11;
Col, 1:3-18; Rev. 13:8, 17:8,19:ll-16,20:10-15); (2)
t h a t fifoiiz Abraham to Isaiah we have the Gospel in jipoiizise
(Gen. 12:3,22:18,26:4,28:14,49:lO;Num. 24:17;Matt.
1:l; John 8 : 5 6 ; Gal, 3:8, 16,26-29); (3) that f ~ o 7 ~Isaiah
z
fo J o / h the Bajfizeip we have the Gospel in )rojheq/ (1
1 Pet. 1:lO-12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 3:19-26,7:?1-Y3: there
15Y
 GENESIS
are more than 300 prophetic statements in the Old Testa-
ment, covering practically every detail of the life of the
anticipated Messiah, all of which were fulfilled in the birth,
life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,
thus identifying Him as that Messiah; indeed it could well
be said that the biography of Jesus could be constructed
in advance from these predictions; see any Bible Concord-
ance, Dictionary or Encyclopedia for the list of these
prophecies and their corresponding f ulf ilments ; see also
Lesson 87 of the last Volume (III-IV in one binding) of
m y Survey Cozcrse in Christiaiz Doctrine, published by the
College Press, Joplin) ; (4) that throughout the incarnate
ministry of Jesus, the O n l y Begotten, we have the Gospel in
Preparation (Heb. 2:3; Matt, 3:2, 12:28, 16:13-20, 24:14,
28:lS-20; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 1O:l-lO; John 20:21-23;
Acts 1 : l - 8 ) ; ( 5 ) that beginning with the first Pentecost
after t h e Resurrection we have the Gospel in fact. Obvi-
ously, the facts of the Gospel-the death, burial and resur-
rection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4)--could not have been
proclaimed as f m t s until they had actually occurred. This
proclamation first took place on the Pentecost following
the Resurrection, the great Day of Spiritual Beginning,
the birthday of the Church (Acts 2:l-4, 2:14-47, 3:12-26,
11:lJ).
2. T h e Threefold Penalty: That Pronounced i~fionthe
Woman ( W o m a n k i n d ) .
(1) It should be noted that whereas the serpentkind
(v. 14) and the ground (v. 17) were put under a divine
curse, neither the Woman nor the Man were similarly
cursed (anathematized), probably in view of the fact that
both were to be included in the possibility of redemption
that was to be proferred by divine grace for all mankind,
and indeed for the entire cosmos (John 1:29, 3:16; Acts
3:18-21, 4:s-12; Rom. 8:18-23; Eph. 3:s-12; Heb. 5:9;
2 Pet. 3:8-13; Rev. 21:l-7, 2 2 : l - 5 ) .
156
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
( 2 ) The penalty prmounced upon the woman, and
hence on womankind, was twofold: ( a ) wifely sorrow
was to be intensified, particularly in childbirth, and (b)
henceforth the woinan (wife) was to be subordinated to
the man in the conjugal relationship. Apparently the
former penalty was t o be the natural consequence of the
inroads of sin on the human body (cf. Exo. 20:?-6, a
statement of t h e couseqweiices of sin, the first statement
of the law of heredity in our literature), Sin brought
sorrow into the world, and contiiiues to do so: t h e multi-
plication of sins results only in the inultiplication of
sorrows: “both are innumerable evils.” Skinner (ICCG,
8 2 ) : “The pangs of childbirth are proverbial in the O T
for the extremity of human anguish,” (Cf. Isa, 21:3,
13:8; Jer. 4:31; Mic. 4:9; Psa. 48:6.) Where there is no
sin, there is no pain, no grief, no fear. Nor should we
overlook t h e fact that implicit in this penalty is the
portent of the many mothers’ hearts which have been
broken by the neglect, the waywardness, the carelessness,
the rebelliousness of sons and daughters: e.g., as in the story
of Mother Eve and her son Cain. M. Henry (CWB, 11) :
“The Woman shall have sorrow, b u t it shall be in bringing
forth children, and the sorrow shall be f o r g o t t e n f o r joy
that a child is bor17, John 16:21. The sentence was not a
curse, to bring her t o ruin, but a chastisement, to bring
her t o repentance” (cf. Heb. 12:4-13). Lange (CDHCG,
2 3 8 ) : “Henceforth must the woman purchase the gain of
children, with t h e danger of her life-in a certain degree,
with spiritual readiness for death, and the sacrifice of her
lifk for t h a t end.”
(3) As for t h e subordination of t h e woinan to t h e man
in the conjugal relation, I find no evidence t h a t man’s
rule was intended to be a tyrannous one: as a matter of
fact the ideal relation of husband and wife is essentially
reciprocal, as already described in Genesis 2:18, 23 (cf.
Eph. 5 :22, 2 5 ) . Although woman was created as man’s
1j7
 GENESIS
counterpart, the helper mate for his needs, hence neither
as his superior nor as his inferior, still and all, her position
was one of dependence on him. B u t w h e n she pernzitted
siiz to conze i n t o the world, it became necessary for her t o
be subordiizded t o ber bzbsbaizd in the corzjugal relatioiz:
t w o co-equal authorities would hardly be conducive t o
order aizd peace in the family. (Woman’s unenviable
position in 0. T. times is indicated by such passages as
Gen. 34:12; Exo. 21:3, 22:16; Deut. 22:23, 24; Deut.
2 4 : l ; Hos. 3:1-2, etc. In the New Testament, such pas-
sages as Matt. 19:3-9; 1 Cor. 11:2-3, 14:34-35; 1 Tim.
2:9-15, have frequently been misapplied (cf. 1 Cor. 11:4-
5 ) . In the last-named texts the Apostle is saying that
for women to speak out in the worshiping assembly in
such ways as to create disorder, and so bring the criticism
of the pagan community upon the church, is disgraceful,
and so it was: it should be noted that he uses the word
&chron, “shame,’’ “disgrace,” not the word hamartia,
cesin.’’ Insofar as the relative standing of male and female
spiritually, that is, in relation to God, New Testament
teaching is clear: male and female are oize iiz Christ Jesus
(Rom. 8:1, 2 Cor. 5:17-20, Gal. 3:28, Rev. 22:17).
However, it is just as clearly stated in the New Testament
as in the Old, that under no circumstances it is permissible
for the woman to usurp dominion over the man, not even
in the church fellowship (Eph. 5:22-33, 1 Tim. 2312-15):
to this extent the language of Gen. 3:16 still holds good,
even though public opinion gives woman a much higher
social status today than she had in older times. To w / I z
u p : Christianity places w o m a n u p o n the same level ,with
muw as regards the blessings of the Gospel, y e t tenclws
expressly that she is subordinated to m a n iiz the inarriage
relationship, t h b s Putting the stamp of approval 09 the
original peizalty jroizounced o n womaizkiizd.
(4) It should be noted that in the Genesis account of
the conjugal relationship of Adam and Eve there is not
158
THE BEGINNING OF PI2YSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
tlie slightest intimation of the m ~ ~ t r i a i ~ h a rnor
t e , of j ~ o l y -
a n d i y (one wife with two or more husbaiids a t the same
time), on Eve’s part, Similarly, there is not the slightest
iiitiiiiatioii of ~ i o l y g y v y (oiie husbaiid with two or more
wives a t the same time) on Adam’s part. (Polyandry
and polygyny are tlie two forms of @ o l y g a m y ) , As a
matter of fact, the creation here of a type of relationship
between Christ and His Bride, tlie Church, made it essen-
tial that Adam have only oiie wife, as Christ has but one
Bride, one Church, and that the Woiiiaii be subordinate
to the Man in marriage, as tlie Church is put under the
exclusive authority of Christ, her sole Head (Rom. 5 : 14;
1 Cor. 15:45-49; Eph, 1:22-23, 4:4, 4:15, 5:23-24; Col,
1:18, 2:10; Rev. 19:7, 21:2, 21:9, 22:17).
3. The Tbivefold Penalty: T h a t Prowowiced Upoii the
M a n (all M a n k i n d ) .
(1) JB (19, n.) : ‘?The punishment is appropriate to
the specific functions of each: the woman suffers as
mother and wife, t h e man as bread-earner. T o this fall
from the original condition there is added death, v. 19, and
the loss of intiinacy with God, v. 23 .”
( 2 ) This judgment proiiouiiced upon the Mali was
fuiidameiitally a declaration to him that t h e earth a t large
lay beyond the boundaries of Eden, and that, following
his expulsion from Eden, he would be coinpelled to pass
under such a penalty by virtue of being outside the Para-
dise of his original innocence. That is to say, (1) he
would be in a world of thorns, briars, and thistles, etc.,
constantly reminding him of his fallen state; ( 2 ) t h a t lie
would be in a world of toil (dog-eat-dog competition)
where he would have t o earn his living in the sweat of his
face; and (3) t h a t he would be in a world of death, in
which his body would iiecessarily return to the dust from
which it was origiiially taken (in our day, ‘‘dust,” of
course, is simply the corporeal man, the body, made up of
the yliysical elements). Cf. Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Rom.
159
 GENESIS
5:12, 8:18-23; Heb. 9:27. This threefold penalty would
be an ever-present reminder of his fallen state; of the fact
that the world (the moral world, and the physical) is
under the judgment of God, under the curse of sin (Psa.
103:13-14, John 3:16-18, Gal. 3:lO-14, 2 Pet. 3:l-7, Rev.
2 2 : 3 ) . N o h z m a n being in his right nzivld C O U ~deny
~
t h a t this threefold Peizalty is in full force today, and that
it bas unfailingly been so throughout the sordid Pages of
h u m a n history f r o m the very beginniizg.
( 3 ) Simpson (IB,7): From now on “man’s relationship
with nature, like his relationships with God and his fellow
men, is in disorder.” Hence the vitiation of his power of
moral discernment, of his ability “to put first things first”
(Matt. 6:33, Col. 3:2, 2 Cor. 4:18), to distinguish properly
between the apparent goods and the real goods of life.
Moreover, along with the birth of conscience, the problems
of rights and duties now arise. (Rzghit is moral power;
might is physical power. These should never be confused,
and certainly should never be identified, either in ethics or
in jurisprudence. )
(4) Note that the judgment to come upon man was to
come upon him f r o m the ground. Man was not cursed,
but the ground was cursed: indeed the ground was cursed
for man’s sake (3:17). Adam had work to do in Eden:
he had been divinely enjoined “to dress and t o keep it,”
that is, the ground (2:15), After expulsion from the
Garden, he was ordered to ‘‘till the ground from whence
he was taken” (3:23). Cornfeld (AtD, 1 5 ) : “Many in-
terpreters have assumed that work is a part of the curse
for man’s sin. The curse is actually in the niggardliness
of the soil or the fruitlessness of his labor.” Even to fallen
mankind, honest labor is a great blessiizg, a positive antidote
for worry, self-pity, temptation, vice and crime. “An
idle brain is the devil’s workshop.” Work may be a curse,
of course, when it is meaningless, when it is “done under
compulsion for ends which the worker hates and against
160
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
which he inwardly rebels.” But it is a great blessing when
it proceeds from incentive, from “freedom so t h a t a inan
feels t h a t the best in himself has a chance to find cxpres-
sioii instead of being frustrated by the compulsioii t h a t
drives him to uncoiigeiiial tasks.’’ (‘In mature people the
hidden instinct which turns back with a child’s nostalgic
longing for irrespoiisibility and undiscipline still thinks of
freedom from work as a kind of paradise” (IB, 111-112),
But man could never be happy living the life of a grass-
hopper floating downstream, I am reminded here of the
good deacon who was asked what lie would do if, after
the Judgment, lie should find himself in Hell. “Well,”
said he, after a moment’s reflection, “one thing is sure-
I would not sit down and do nothing. At least I’d get
busy and try to start a prayer-meeting.” Similarly, ~e
can hardly conceive of Heaven as a place of sheer inactiv-
ity. Someone has said: “To live is to act; to act is to
choose; and to choose is to evaluate.” Life, if it is anything
a t all, is activity, Mill Durant has advised us well: “Do
some physical work every day. Nature intended thought
t o be a guide to action, not a substitute for it. Thought
unbalanced by action is a disease.” In the words of Henry
van Dyke:
“This is tlie gospel of labour,
ring it, ye bells of tlie kirk!
The Lord of Love came down from above,
to live with t h e men who work;
This is t h e rose t h a t He planted,
here in the thorn-curst soil:
Heaven is blest with perfect rest,
but the blessing of Earth is toil.”
(See also Angela Morgan’s poems, “Hymn t o Labor,” and
“Work: A Song of Triumph”; from tlie latter these
stirring lines) :
161
 GENESIS
‘Wor k !
Thank God for the swing of it,
For the hammering, clamoring ring of it !
Passion of labor daily hurled
On the mighty anvils of the world!
Oh what is so fierce as the flame of it,
And what is so high as the aim of it!
Thundering on through dearth and doubt,
Calling the Plan of the Maker out.
Work, the Titan; work, the friend,
Shaping the earth to a glorious end;
Draining the swamps and blasting the hills,
Doing whatever the spirit wills;
Rending the continent apart
.
To answer the dream of the master heart . .
Thank God for the world where none may shirk!
Thank God for the splendor of worlc!’’
(5) “ T ~ onizd
Y ~thistles,” etc. Lange (CDHCG, 239) :
As a natural species, “tho>rnsand thistles must have existed
before; but it is now the tendency of nature to favor the
ignoble forms rather than the noble, the lower rather than
the higher, the weed rather than the herb.” Thus is indi-
cated “the sickliness of nature,” “the positive opposition of
nature to man” . . . “there comes in a tendency to wild-
ness or degeneracy which transforms the herb into a weed.”
Again: “In place of the garden-culture, there is introduced
not agriculture simply, but an agriculture which is, a t the
same time, a strife with existing nature, and in place of
the fruit of Paradise, is man now directed to the fruit of
the field.” It is a well-known fact that nature, if un-
cultivated, if left to her own resources, tends to deterior-
ate rather than to advance; set out tomato plants, for
example, this year, and cultivate them, and the fruit is
excellent; let the seed from this year’s fruit fall into the
ground, however, and produce fruit in “volunteer” fashion,
and the product is always inferior. This subhuman de-
162
THE BEGINNING OF PI-IYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
terioratioii of species in a natural state is pointed directly
toward the fact of inaii’s inoral deterioration: we all know
how easy it is to get down to wallowing in the gutter
morally, and how muck genuine coiniiiitinent aiid persever-
ance it takes, on the other hand, to climb the kraiteiied”
(narrow, restricted) Way t h a t leads to “life” (Matt,
7:14) ; t h a t is, to develop morally and spiritually, to en-
hance the richness of the iiiner man and his appreciation
of t h e higher values of life, such as faith, hope and love
(1 Cor, 13:13).
( 6 ) “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field.” JB, 19:
“You shall eat wild plaiits”; RSV, “the plants of t h e field.”
Is this stateiiient intended to sharpen the contrast between
fallen man’s food and the fruit of Paradise Lost? Is it a
warning to man t h a t henceforth he would have to eat
plants of t h e liiiid which had originally been designed to
be sustenance for brute animals only (Gen. 1:30) ? Does
it mean t h a t inaii was to continue to be a strict vegetarian?
(cf. 1:29-30)? Or was it a presage of the fact that all
forms of animal life must-and do-depend on plant
photosynthesis for their very existence? The thought is
intriguing, is it not? Swcly, all ti~dthis p i x w i t always t o
the SPisif of God, He who has giveit 14s the Bible!
4. Death: Mali’s Last aiid Most Terrible Eizenzy (I Cor.
15:25-26).
( 1 ) Death is described in Scripture under three general
terms, as follows: as a sleep (Psa. 13:3; Dan. 12:2; Matt.
9:24; John 11:12-14; I Cor. 15:6, 20; 1 Thess. 4:14; obvi-
ously, the language of apfiearame: there is no more thor-
oughly authenticated fact of psychic pheiioineiia today than
the fact that the subconscious in i i i a i i i i e v e ~sleeps, t h a t is,
in the sense of being completely inactive at any inoineiit:
cf, William James’s “streaiii-of -consciousiiess” psychology) ;
as a chntige (Job 14: 14) , literally, a “relief,”
“release”; hence, a transition, translation, transfiguration:
cf, 1 Cor. 15:50-54, 2 Cor. j:1-9, 1 Thess. 4:13-17); aiid
163
 GENESIS
as a Divine a p j o i n t m e n t (Heb, 9:27-28, cf. Col. 1 : 5 , 2
Tim. 4:8: an appointment that every son and daughter
of Adam cannot avoid: cf. Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 2:5-6,
14:lO; 2 Cor. 5:lO; Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:12).
(2) According to Scripture teaching, “the wages of sin
is death” (Rom. 6:23); the genealogical tree of evil is, in
the order named, Satan, lust, sin, death (Jas. 1 :13-15) :
not only physical death, the separation of the spirit from
the body and the consequent dissolution of the physical
frame (Le., its resolution into its original physiochemical
elements (Gen. 2:16-17, 3:19, 5 : 5 , etc.; John 19:30; Heb.
9:27) , but also spiritual death, the second death, eternal
separation of the human spirit from the living and true
God (Deut. 5:26, Psa. 42:2, Matt. 16:16, Acts 14:15, 1
Thess. 1:9, Heb. 12:22, Rev. 7 : 2 ) , the Source of Life (Gen.
2:7; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev. 2:11, 20:14, 21:8). Whatever
else the word “hell” may signify in Scripture, it does
signify the complete loss of God and of all Good (Matt.
5:22, 5329-30, 10:28, 2 ~ 4 1 ) . Obviously, death iiz thlis
t w o f o l d sense is indicated in the penalty enjoined and
executed on Adam and his posterity, all humankind.
( 3 ) Gen. 2 :17, 3 :19. Universal physical death is clearly
indicated in this penalty: this is evident from the oft-
repeated phrase in ch. 5 , “and he died.” This phase of
the penalty was to come upon the earthly part of man ( 1
Cor. 15:47) from the very ground out of which this part
of him--the body-was taken; that is, the part made up
of the physiochemical elements, but in archaic language
adapted to the infancy of the race, dust (Eccl. 12:7; Job
10:9, 34:15; Psa. 103:14). In our time, of course, what
Scripture calls “dust” we call “matter,” and it is significant
that our word ccmatter’yderives from the Latin materia,
which in t u r n developed out of the word muter, “mother.”
It is indeed significant that throughout human history
the concept of Mother Earth (Terra M&r) has played
such an important role in man’s thinking and living.
164
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
Gen, 2 :7--“Yahweh Elohim formed niaii of t h e dust of
t h e ground,” etc. That part of him which is physical,
corporeal, material, t h a t is to say, his framz, is of the
earth, earthy; and this is tlie part which goes back t o
the dust-the primal elements-whence it came. But
Yahweh did iiot stop with the framing of the physical
man: he then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life
(an iiifiiiitesirnal part of His own being) : Hence, inan
is more than dust, more t h a n body-he is a psychosomatic
unity. Obviously, this is t h e fundamental truth which
Genesis would impress upon us concerning the nature,
origin, and destiny of the person. Since t h e body part
came originally from the universal stock of the Stuff of
things (the German, Dei. Stoff, is more meaningful than
tlie English word “matter”), it is the part which goes
back into this primal Stuff. Hence, Gen. 3 : IP--“dust
thou art, aiid unto dust shalt thou return.”
(4) I see no reason for assuming from the Genesis
narrative of t h e Creation t h a t t h e Man was made by
nature immune to physical death. I must disagree with
Whitelaw here, who writes (PCG, 4 6 ) : “Adam, it thus
appears, was permitted t o partake of the tree of life;
iiot, however, as a means of either conferring or preserv-
ing immortality, which was already his by Divine gift,
and the only method of conserving which recognised by
the narrative was abstaining from tlie tree of knowledge;
but as a symbol aiid guarantee of that immortality with
which he had been endowed, and which would continue to
be his so long as he maiiitaiiied his personal integrity.”
It is true, of course, tliat as a consequeiice of his eating of
the Tree of Icnowledge, the Man forfeited the privilege
of immunity from physical death. However, this does
not necessarily mean tliat he was cwated immortal. (We
avoid confusion here by remembering t h a t “iiicorruptioii,”
<e *
immortality,” etc., in Scripture have reference t o the
structure aiid destiny of tlie body: cf. Luke 20:34-36;
161
 GENESIS
Rom. 2:7, 8:11, 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:20-58; 2 Cor. 5:1-9;
etc.). On the contrary, it seems evident that Adam was
constituted mortal-in the human sense of the term-
from the beginning, and that he was given the privilege
of partaking of the Tree of Life the fruit of which was
designed to be the means of counteracting his mortality.
It will thus be seen that Adam could have maintained his
innocence, and by perfect obedience to the Will of God
could have grown into, holiness, in which case we may
well suppose that even his body would have become trans-
figured and translated to Heaven (cf. Gen. 5:24, 2 Ki.
2: 11) , without the intervention of physical death as we
know it. Moreover, when he did transgress the law of
God, it became imperative that he be expelled from the
Garden, and that “the way of the tree of life” be “lrept”
(guarded, v. 2 4 ) , so that in his state of rebelliousness he
might not gain access to its fruit and so renew his youth;
that is to say, in order that the inherent laws of mortality
might work out their natural course in his physical con-
stitution (cf. Gen. 2:22-24, $ : I ) . (See my V d I, Part
IX, pp. 509ff., of the present work). This is indicated
by the literal rendering of the penalty as originally pro-
nounced with respect to eating of the Tree of Knowledge
(2:17): “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die,” or, “dying, thou shalt die.” We have already
noted (Vol. I, Part IV) the variations in the meaning of
the word “day” in Scripture, and especially in these first
few chapters of Genesis: and here the wording indicates
a process of some duration, not an instantaneous event.
This is in harmony with our knowledge today: science
tells us that the human body undergoes complete cellular
transformations about every five years; that, as a matter
of fact, from the moment of birth the life process sets
in which is certain to terminate in death (Psa. 23:4, Heb.
9:27). Nor can this life process, this flux or flow of
166
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
the River of Life, be reversed (Rev, 2 2 : l ) : it flows in
one direction, and in one only.
( 5 ) Skinner (ICCG, 8 3 ) . “The question whether man
would have lived forever if he had not sinned is one to
which the narrative furnishes no answer.” Cf, v, 22-
in this passage the “live forever” has reference to t h e
Man’s living forever in a state of alienation from God,
Simpson writes (IBG, 5 12- 5 13) : “There is no suggestion
here that man would have lived forever had he not eaten
of t h e forbidden fruit. Rather, the implication is that
man would have regarded death not as the last fearful
frustration but as his natural end. The fear of death is
a consequence of the disorder in man’s relationships, as a
result of which they are no longer characterized by
mutuality but by domination.’’ He goes on to say that
man tries to build up relatiomhips with others and on
others to try to fill the need for security which he ex-
periences. “From t h e fear of death, however, he cannot
escape. For in the depth of his soul he knows t h a t t h e
structure of relationships which he has created to protect
hiinself is fundainentally without substance. In t h e end
it will crumble and he will be compelled to face the fact
t h a t he had always tried to deny-that he is man and not
God. Man’s disordered relationships and his fear of death
are inextricably bound u p together, the consequence of his
alienation from God.’’ As a matter of f a c t , the very
of the stories of Adam aMd Eve, of Cain’s 7Izurder
esseiice
of his brorher Abel, aiid of tJ3e Tower of Babel, efc., is
the fact of w a d s wpeated atrr’eiizpts t o play God. This
has been man’s chief occupation throughout his entire
history, and he is still a t it. (Cf. Captain Ahab in Mel-
ville’s Mob3) D i c k ) .
(6) Death, however, in Scripture has a far more tragic
meaning than t h a t which is signified by the resolution
of the corporeal part of inan into its original elements.
In its deepest sense it is the separation of t h e soul from
167
 GENESIS
God, the Source of all life (Exo. 3:14, Gen. 2:7, John
11:25-26, Acts 17:25). This kind of death, spiritual
(as distinguished from p h y s i c d ) death is clearly indicated
in the penalty pronounced on humankind a t the beginning.
Throughout Scripture death is regarded only secomdarily
as the cessation of animal life, but primarily as the pri-
vation of life in the sense of favor with God and conse-
quent happiness. I t is the turning from confidence in
God to confidence in t h e creahre. It is the schism that
occurs between Creator and creature that is caused by the
latter’s disobedience, i.e., by sin. The only remedy for
this kind of death is reconciliation in Christ (John 1:29,
2 Cor. 5:17-21), and reconciliation is the essence of true
religion. Lacking this reconciliation, as a result of re-
belliousness, neglect, wilful ignorance, etc., this kind of
death, spiritwl death, becomes in the end eternal death:
this is the second death, eternal separation “from the face
of the Lord and from the glory of his might.’’ (Cf. 2
Thess. 1:7-10; Prov. 14:12; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 7:13, 8:22,
10:28, 23:33, 25:30, 41; Mark 9:44; John J:29, 6:53;
Rom. 1:32, 2:8, 5 : 1 5 , 6:13, 6:23, 8:6, 9:22; Eph. 2:1,
4:18; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:6; Heb. 6:1, 9:14; 1 John
3:14; Jas 4:12; 2 Pet. 2:17; Rev. 2:11, 19:20, 20:6, 20:14,
21 :8). Note Psa. 23 :4--“the valley of the shadow of
death.” That is, physical death, the dissolution of the
corporeal frame, is not real death; rather, it is but the
“shadow” of eternal and real death, the complete separation
from God and all Good, in Hell, the penitentiary of the
moral universe (Isa. 9:2, Matt. 4:16, Luke 1:79, Matt.
25:41).
R. Milligan (SR, 52-61) summarizes this phase of the
subject most convincingly. He writes as follows (refer-
ring to the language of Gen. 2 : 1 7 ) : “The words life and
d e & Jare both representatives of very profound and mys-
terious realities. Hence, it is not a matter of surprise
that men of a visionary and speculative turn and habit
168
THE BEGINNING OF PI-IYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
of mind should have formed some very strange and absurd
notions and theories concerning them, Some, for example,
suppose that life is equivalent to mere existence, and that
death is equivalent to annihilation, But this is absurd
1. Because there is existence where there is no life, Min-
erals exist, but they have 110 life, 2, Because there is also
death where there is no evidence of annihilation, as in the
case of trees, flowers, etc. Indeed, there is no satisfactory
evidence that any substance is ever annihilated, whether
material or immaterial, It is evident, therefore, that life
is not mere existence, and that death is not annihilation.
But it is easier to say what they are not than to define
what they are. Some of the necessary coiiditfons of life,
however, are very obvious. ...
Be it observed, then, that
one of the essential conditions of life is un,io7z, and that one
of the essential conditions of death is separati07i. There
is no life in atoms, and there can be no death without a
separation from some living substance. ...To give life,
then, to any substance it must be ProperZy united to soiize
liuiiig aiid lif e-imparting agent. Aiid t o work death in
any substance i t i i z i h s t be separated f r o m said ageiit by the
destruction of its orgaiiizatioii or otherwise. Thus, for
example, the carbon of the atmosphere is vivified by being
united to living vegetables and animals, and by being
separated from these life-imparting agents it again loses
its vitality. The number of living and life-giving agents
is, of course, very great. God has made every vegetable
and every animal a depository of life. But, nevertheless,
he is himself the only original, unwasting, and ever-endur-
ing fountain of life, See Psa. 3 6 : 9 , John J:26, 1 Tim.
6 : 16. And hence it follows t h a t uizioii with God in some
w a y avd b ~ isome nzeaiis is eswitial t o all life, aiid that
sepafpation f r o m him is always death. Acts 16:25. . . .
Whether inanimate objects are united to God in more than
one way may be a question. But that inan’s union with
his Maker is supported by various chains or systems of
169
 GENESIS
instrumentalities, seems very certain. Through one system
of means, for example, is supported his mere existence
(Heb. 1: 3 ) . Through another his animal life is continued,
with an immense train of physical enjoyments; and
through still another is maintained his higher spiritual life
-his union, communion, and fellowship with God, as the
ever-enduring and only satisfying portion of his soul.
Psa. 73:25, 26. And hence it follows that there are also
different kinds of death, and that a man may be alive in
one sense and dead in another. See Matt. 8:22, John 5:24,
Eph. 2 :1-7, 1 Tim. 5 :6, 1 John J : 12.” Milligan goes on to
say that animal or physical death, the separation of spirit
and body, was obviously not the only death implicit in
the language of Gen. 2:17. He concludes: “But that
spiritual death, or a separation of the soul from God, is
the chief and fundamental element of this penalty, is evi-
dent from several considerations: 1. I n no other seizse did
A d a m and Eve die on the saine day that t h e y sinned.
But in a spiritual sense they certainly did die a t the very
time indicated (Gen. 3 :8 ) . They then, by a common law
of our nature, became enemies to God by their own wicked
works (Col. 1:ZI ) . 2. Spiritual death seems, a priori, t o be
t h e root of all evils; the prolific source of all o w calamities
and misf ortunes. Reunion with God implies every blessing,
and separation from Him implies the loss of everything.
Hence we find that this kind of life and death is always
spoken of in the Bible as that which is chief and para-
mount (Matt. 10:28, John 11:26). 3. This is further
evident f r o m the f a c t that the first a i d chief object of
the Gospel is to unite man to God spiritually. . . . 4. It
seenzs t h a t b y eatiizg of the f r n i t o f the Tree o f Life, A d a m
m i g h t have escaped Physical or animal death (Gen. 3:22).”
(From this last statement we must dissent. The language
of v. 22 clearly indicates that it was by partaking of the
fruit of the Tree of Life the Man was to renew and
perpetuate his youth physically; that his banishment from
170
THE BEGINNING OF PI-IYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
the Garden was to prevent his doing this and so counter-
acting forever the laws of mortality inherent in his consti-
tution, to the end that natural or physical death should
occur in due course in the world outside Eden.)
From all these considerations it follows naturally that,
just as t h e Bible teaches, the Second Death will C O I I . S ~ S ~ ,
iiot i n the sepayatioi?. of the himan spirit from the body,
but ~ I Ithe eteriaal sejairatioia of the imforgiven (uiwecoii,-
cilea! to God in Christ, 2 Cor, J :17-21 ) “bivhg sod” (Gen.
2:7) “froiiz the face of the Lord a i d from, the glory of
his might” ( 2 Tbess. 1 : 7 - 1 0 ) , Cf. Matt. 25:41, 4 6 ; Rev.
2:11, 20:6, 20:14, 2 1 : 4 ) .
From a correlation of the teaching in the second and
third chapters of Genesis concerning various aspects of
the Fall, it seems clear that both physical uiad spiritual
death, both as described above, have desceided 011.all m a n -
kitid as u comequeiice of siiz (Rom. 3:23). Death, w h a t -
ever f o r m it m a y take is ill. the world because sin is iii.
the world. Rom. 6:23--“the wages of sin is death.’’ Jas.
1:13-15, the genealogy of evil is Satan, lust, sin, death, in
the order named, (Rom. 5:12, 7:14; 1 Cor. 15:21-26,
50-57; Heb. 9:27-28).
The Son of God was manifested “to take away sin,” to
“destroy the works of the devil” ( 1 John 3 : 5 , 8 ; Matt.
1:21; John 1:29; Heb. 2:14-15; 1 Cor. 15:3, 15320-28;
2 Cor. 5 : l - y ) . Redemption in Christ Jesus is coiizplete
redemption, t h a t is, redemption in spirit and soul and body
(I Thess. 5:23 ) , redemption both from the guilt of sin
(Ezelr. 18:19-20), and from the coiwq?wzces of sin (Exo.
20:5-6, Rom. 8 : 2 3 ) . (Note the Biblical emphasis on the
universality of death: Eccl. 3 :2, 1 2 : 7 ; Gen. 3 : 19; Rom.
3:23, 6:23, 5:12-13, 8:23; John 8 : 4 4 ; Heb. 2:14-15, 9:27;
Jas. 1:13-15, etc.).
“20 And the mati called his wife’s izaiiw Eve; be-
cause she was the mother of all biviiig. 21 Ana! Jeho-
v u h God iizade f o ~A d a m and for his wife coats of
171
 GENESIS
skins, and clothed them. 22 A n d Jehovah God said,
Behold, the m a n is become as one of us, t o k n o w good
and evil; and now, lest he put f o r t h his barad, and
take also of t h e tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 therefore Jehovah God sent hinz f o r t h f r o m t h e
garden of Eden, t o till the ground from whence h e
was taken. 24 So he drove out the m a n ; and he placed
at the east of the gardeia of Eden the Cherzbbim, and
t h e flame of a sword which turiqed every way, to
keep the w a y of the tree o f life.”
5 T h e Immediacy of the Perqalty embraced the follow-
ing :
(1 ) T h e setting in of the Process of mortulity inherent
in the constitution of man from the beginning (i-e., by
creation),
( 2 ) T h e birth of conscience, with the sense of separa-
tion from God (schism) and the feelings of guilt and
shame which accompanied it.
( 3 ) Imnzediate expulsion f r o m Eden. ( a ) Holiness
cannot fellowship with iniquity: God has no concord with
Mammon (Luke 16: 13-perhaps “gain” personified) or
with Belial ( 2 Cor. 6:lS-evidently another name for
Satan). (b) This banishment was necessary also, in order
t h a t , as stated above, man might not renew and perpetuate
his youth, in his fallen condition, by partaking of the Tree
of Life a t will and so counteracting the operation of the
mortal process inherent in him by creation; in a word,
that physical death might take place in due course as an
essential phase of the punishment for sin. (The same
reasoning applies whether eating of the Tree of Knowl-
edge was a real act of eating some kind of real fruit, or
whether the eating of the forbidden fruit is to be taken
as symbolic of some-any-particular act of disobedience
to God. In either case, sin-man’s own sin-had come
between him and God. It is too obvious to be questioned
that we have here a picture of what happens in every life
172
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
when the age of discretion (and consequently of responsibil-
ity) is attained.) ( c ) Schoiifield (BWR, 171) : “The
Sacred Tree representing life renewing itself is one of the
most ancient religious symbols found all over the world,”
(Could this be a prevuc, so to speak, of the necessary role
of plant photosynthesis to all forms of animal life?)
Schonfeld again: “But here there is a direct reference to
a prophecy of Paradise Regained found in a book written
perhaps 200 years earlier, where it is said of the Messiah:
He shall open the Gates of Paradise,
And remove the threatening sword against Adam.
He shall grant to the Saints to eat
from the Tree of Life,
And t h e Spirit of Holiness shall be open then.
-Testament of Levi, xviii.”
(d) Maimonides summarizes as follows (GP, 16: ‘‘Our
text suggests t h a t Adam, as he altered his intention and
directed his thoughts to the acquisition of what he was
forbidden, was banished from Paradise: this was his pun-
ishment; it was measure for measure. At first he had
the privilege of tasting pleasure and happiness, and of
enjoying repose and security; but as his appetites grew
.
stronger, and he followed his desires and impulses . . and
partook of the food he was forbidden to taste, he was de-
prived of everything, was doomed to subsist on the meanest
kind of food, such as he had never tasted before, and this
even onJy after exertion and labor, as it is said, ‘Thorns
and thistles shall grow up for thee’ (Gem 3 : 1 8 ) , ‘By the
sweat of thy brow,’ etc., and in explanation of this the
text continues, ‘And t h e Lord God drove him from the
Garden of Eden, to till the ground whence he was taken.’
He was now with respect to food and many other re-
quirements brought to the level of the lower animals;
comp. ‘Thou shalt eat the grass of the field’ (Gen. 3 : 1 8 ) .
Reflecting on his condition, the Psalmist says, ‘Adam unable
173
 GENESIS
t o dwell in dignity, was brought to the level of the dumb
beast’ (Ps. 49:12) ,”
(e) Note especially the devices which Yahweh used “to
keep the way of the tree of life.” (-i-) Cherubim were
stationed a t the east of the Garden. Archaeology indicates
that these were symbolic winged creatures. Figures of
winged creatures of various kinds were rather common
throughout the ancient pagan world, such as winged lions,
bulls, sphinxes, or combinations of a lion’s body and a
human face, etc. (Cf. Ezekiel’s four composite “living
creatures” seen by him by the River Chebar, ch. l o ) . In
Hebrew thought, however, the word “cherub” seems to
have indicated an angel of high rank (e.g., Lucifer--“Day-
star’’-who became Satan: cf. Isa. 14:12-15) : hence,
cherubim (plural) apparently were figures symbolic of
angels and their ministrations (Heb. 1 : 1 4 ) . They are
uniformly represented as occupying exalted positions, and
as functioning to guard, to veil, or to denote attributes
of, the Deity. They have been explained as “symbolic
creatures specially prepared to serve as emblems of creature-
life in its most perfect form,’’ that is, perhaps, as symboliz-
ing the good angels. They were caused to dwell-someone
has said--“at the gate of Eden to intimate that only when
perfected and purified could human nature return to
Paradise.” (-ii-) Note also “the flame of a sword’’
(flaming sword) “which turned every way, to keep the
way of the tree of life,” Is it not obvious, by comparison
with Rev. 22:2, that the Tree of Life, however literally it
is to be defined, is essentially a symbol of the Word, the
Logos, both personal (as the Messiah Himself), and as im-
personal (in the form of His Last Will and Testament: cf.
John 1:1-14, Heb. 11:3, Psa. 33:6, 9 ) , the Mediator, the
connecting link that alone binds fallen man back to God
and so prepares and qualifies him for final Union with God,
Life Everlasting? (Cf. John 3:13-15, 3:36, 1:51; Gen.
28:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 12:24; 2 Cor. 5:18-21). Is not
174
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
the Flaming Sword to be recognized as the symbol of the
Logos, which is the Sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17) ;
“the Word of God which is living, and active, and sharper
than any two-edged sword,” etc. (Ileb. 4 : 12) ? (-iii-)
As “lceepiiig” the Way of the Tree of Life, these instru-
inentalities testified to the fact t h a t God was still lceeping
watch, not alone over the Tree of Life, but also over the
guilty pair who had been banished from their Edenic
eiiviroiiinent into the world at large, and indeed over their
progeny from t h a t day t o the present. “The Way of the
Tree of Life” was closed for many centuries, until, in fact,
Jesus came announcing, “I am the way, and the truth, and
t h e life” (John 5:40, 11:25-26, 1 4 : 6 ) .
( 4 ) rrMotheip Eve.” Her generic name was WOI~ZUIZ
(Gen. 2 :23 ) ; her personal name, Eve, Le., ccliving,y’“life.”
This is obviously a psobepsis: there is no indication that she
was the mother of anyone a t the time Adam named her.
(See Gemsis, Vol. I, pp. 541-546). Note that this is the
first use of the word “mother” in Scripture.)
( 5 ) C r C ~ aoff ~Slti7is.”
~ Thus we have the divine law
established a t the beginning, that “apart from the shedding
of blood there is no remission” (of sins, Heb. 9 : 2 2 ) . As
fallen creatures, dedb stood between God and man; hence
it became necessary to offer, a t once, a substitute life.
But the life is in the blood (Lev. 1 7 : l l ) ; therefore blood
had to be shed. In all likelihood this was the beginning
of animal sacrifice, although we have no specific mention
of this iiistitutioii until in the next chapter, in the story
of Cain and Abel. Thus it was that, at the very be-
ginnihg, God sought to impress upon the Man and the
Woman the fact of their fallen state by reinoviiig from
them the garments of leaves ( 3 :7 ) which they themselves
had woven to cover their physical nudity, and clothing
them in skiiis which I-Ie prepared for them through the
shedding of blood, symbolically to cover their spiritual
nakedness.
175
 GENESIS
( 6 ) The expulsion from the Garden actualized the im-
mediacy of the threefold penalty: permanent aspects of it
were executed in the world a t large through the operation
of physical and moral law. The great Milton has given
us a vivid portrayal of the feelings of our Mother Eve as
she cast the last, long lingering look on the groves of
Paradise Lost:
“0unexpected stroke, worse than of death!
Must I thus leave thee, Paradise! thus leave
Thee, native soil, these happy walks and shades,
Fit haunts for gods! where I had hoped to spend
Quiet, though sad, the respite of that day,
Which must be mortal to us both! 0 flowers
That never will in other climate grow,
My early visitation, and my last
At ev’n, which I bred up with tender hand,
From your first opening buds, and gave you names,
Who now will rear you to the sun, or rank
Your tribes, and water from the ambrosial fount?”
6. “The Lost Chance of Immortality.” This is a phrase
common to Biblical exegetes of a certain persuasion who
would identify immortality with survival only, either be-
cause they are ignorant of, or refuse to accept, the Scrip-
ture doctrine as fully revealed in the New Testament,
namely, that immortality (a) is not mere survival (b)
but the phenomenon of the redemption (ultimate trans-
mutation and glorification) of the body, and ( c ) one of
the rewards of obedience to the Gospel, and hence promised
only to those who live and die in the Lord (Ps. 116315;
Rev. 14:13; John 11:25-26; Rom. 2:7, 8:23; 1 Cor. 1 5 ~ 3 5 -
5 8 ; 2 Cor. 5 : l - 9 ; Phil. 2:5-11; 1 Thess. 4 : 1 3 - 1 7 ) . This
is always what happens to those who neglect or reject New
Testament teaching, who fail to consider the teaching of
the Bible as a whole, on any given subject, The members
of this “school” would have it that human immortality
176
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
was in some sense a threat t o t h e sovereignty o f God; thus
they insist on accepting and perpetuating the Devil’s own
lie t o Mother Eve, t h a t she, by partaking of the forbidden
fruit, would be “as God, knowing good and evil.yy For
example, Cornfeld writes (AtD, 17) with reference to
Gen, 3:22-24: “This then is the legendary reason why
mankind does not live forever in Eden and must toil over
the face of the earth, Original man was expelled from
Eden because the divinity saw him as a dangerous rival,
trying to rise halfway to divinity. The element of dis-
obedience in the text is oiily circumstantial. It is not the
main consideration in the story. Man, indeed, does not
die, as threatened. Instead God is threatened with man’s
immortality. This would make man quite divine, which
would be contrary to the order of nature and the cosmos.
So God placed t h e ‘Cherubim’ t o bar the approaches to
t h e Tree of Life. After this man can appreciate his true
condition: that the good earth is the place where his life
will be played out. He understands that he can never
dream of immortality. But he will return to the ground
in death, for from the ground he was made.” (This last
statement is contradicted by such Old Testament passages
as Gen. 2:7; Ps. 23:4; Job 14:14-15, 34:14; Eccl. 12:7;
cf. also Luke 23:46, Acts 7 : 5 9 ) . This writer goes on to
discuss what he calls “the lost chance of immortality in
t h e myths of antiquity,’’ citing as examples the Babylonian
tales of Adapa and Gilgamesh (ibid, pp. 19-21). How-
ever, this interpretation of the Genesis account is com-
pletely negated by the teaching of the Bible as u whole.
The‘fallacies implicit in it are the following:
( 1 ) The ambiguous use of the term immwtality. The
Greek original is athanasia, which means literally death-
lessiiess ( I Cor. 15:53-54, 1 Tim. 6 : 1 6 ) . (The kindred
Greek term is akbtharsia, usually rendered (‘incorruption”
or “incorruptibility” (Rom. 2:17; 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, Y3,
F4; 2 Tim. 1 : l o ) . Apparently aphthmia and athaiiasia
177
 GENESIS
are used interchangeably in the apostolic writings.) In
English, “deathlessness” and ccimmortalityJ’have become
equally ambiguous terms, and this ambiguity seems to per-
vade all human literature on the subject. Obviously, how-
ever, that which is truly mortal is truly corrzbptible (i.e.,
subject to change and decay), and this is a quality which
can be predicated only of corporealiiy; hence we must con-
clude that the part of man which is corruptible and mortal,
and which can by Divine power (Rom. 8 : 1 1 ) be made
incorruptible and immortal, if we are to speak precisely,
is the body. But, according to Scripture, nzarz is more tbaiz
body (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; j o b 27:3, 32:s; Matt. 26:41;
Luke 23:46; John 19:30; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 2 : l l ) : he is
body vitalized by spirit, the Breath of God. Hence inznzor-
tality must be distirzguisbed f rom mere survival; iiz Scrip-
t u r e t h e t e r m has reference exclusively to the destiny of
the body. (See my Gerzesis, Vol. I, pp. 439-444). On this
general subject, three views have been advanced in the past,
as follows: ( a ) the ancient Egyptian view, that the physical
body would be revivifed and united with the soul follow-
ing the judgment of Osiris; hence, mummification, also
burial of food, flowers, ornaments, and even a few slaves,
with the corpses of the nobility: the boi Polloi, to be sure,
were not considered of sufficient worth to rate such a t -
tentions; (b) the Oriental notion of survival in some
kind of bodilessness, as absorbed into what has been called
the ocean of undifferentiated primal energy; and ( c ) the
Biblical doctrine, that the physical bodies of the saints
(the righteous, the justified, the redeemed) shall ultimately
be transmuted into spiritual (ethereal) bodies adapted to
their needs in the heavenly world (Rom. 8:18-24, Phil.
3:20-21, 1 Cor. 15:35-57, 2 Cor. 5:l-lO). The Bible
gives us no information as to the destiny of the bodies of
those who shall suffer eternal separation “from the face
of the Lord and from the glory of his might”: 2 Thess.
1 :7-10).
178
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
(2) A misconception of the constituent elements o f
Iiuman nature per se, as it came from the handiwork of
the Creator. As stated several times heretofore, and re-
peated here for emphasis, according to Gen. 2:7, man,
naturally, is a spirit-body (in scientific terms, a psychoso-
w a t i c ) unity, He is imperishable spirit, tabernacled in a
corporeal frame (2 Cor. 5: 1-10). Following the Judg-
ment, the saints will continue to be imperishable spirits,
but clothed in celestial (spiritual, ethereal) , rather than
in terrestrial, bodies, As such they will still be “living
souls” (Gen. 2:7, 46:27; Acts 2:41, 27:37; Rev. 6:9,
20 :4) . In Scripture this traiismutatioii process (meta-
morphosis) is designated variously as “glorification” (Dan,
12:3; John 7:39; Matt. 17:l-2; Acts 9:3-4, 22:6-8, 26:12-
15; Rom. 8:29-30; 2 Cor. 3:18; 1 Cor. 15:45-49), as
t<
glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life” (Rom.
2 :7), as the “putting on of immortality” (1 Cor, 1 5 :54).
From these considerations it follows t h a t the statements
quoted above are erroiieous in t h a t they deal with the
human being as t h e product solely of earthy or physical
elements (cf. 1 Cor. 15:47), and disregard completely the
fact of the imperishability of the interior (or real) man
(2 Cor. 4 : l l - 1 8 ) . Note the last sentence: Man “will
return to the ground in death, for from the ground he
was made”: this is materialism pure and simple!
( 3 ) Failure to take adequate account of the Divine
Attributes, namely, (a) Absolute Justice (Ps. 8 5 :10, Isa.
9 :7) which demanded sanctions appropriate to the susten-
tion of t h e majesty of the Divine Law which man had
violated, aiid so to vindicate the Divine Will by which the
Law was established; (b) Absolute Goodness, which would
have been impugned had God chosen to create man in
His own image and then leave him hopelessly lost in a
world of sin, suffering, and death, aiid thus doomed to
live on a level but little higher than that of the brute (cf.
Psa. 8:l-9, Rom. 2:4) ; and (c) Diviue Love (grace, com-
179
 GENESIS
passion, mercy) which was poured out in such a sacrificial
manifestation as to prove to all intelligent creatures (both
angels and men) God’s desire and hope to bring the rebel
back-of his own volition-into reconciliation and fellow-
ship impaired by sin ( 2 Cor. 5:17-21, John 17:3, 1 John
1:3-4, 2 Pet. 3 : 9 ) . To this end God gave His Only Be-
gotten as the Supreme Sacrifice, gave Him freely for us
all (Rom. 8:32, John 1:29, 1 Pet. 2:21-25, Heb. 1 2 : 2 ) .
“God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world”
(Le., mankind). Why not? Because the world (mankind)
was, and is, under Divine judgment. Hence, God sent
the Son into the world, “that the world should be saved
through him” (John 3 : 16-2 1 ) .
(4) Rejection of the New Testament fulfilment of the
Old Testament preparation, hence of the entire Remedial
System. The excerpt quoted above ignores the Plan of
Redemption as if it had never existed in the Mind of God
(Eph. 3 : l - 1 2 , 2 : l - l o ) . Divine Justice could not, in the
very nature of the case, tolerate rebellion in either angels
or men, for that would be putting a value (premium) on
sin; nor could Divine Love suffer the man, rebel though
he was, and is, to be lost, to perish in Hell forever, without
making the Supreme Effort to win him back. Hence, God
did for man what man could not do for himself: He pro-
vided the necessary Atonement (Covering) for sin and
vindicatory sanction for sustaining the majesty of the
Divine Law (cf. Psa. 94:1, 1 Thess. 4:6, Heb. 10:30, Rom.
12 : 1 9 - 4 1 these various passages it is vindicatioiq, not ven-
geance (.Le., revenge) that is signified: true law never
seeks revenge), the Divine Act which was a t the same time
a demonstration of His ineffable love for the one whom He
had created in His own image (Rom. 8:35-39) , the demon-
stration designed to overcome the rebellion in man’s heart,
and thus make it possible for God to be “just, and the
justifier of him that hath faith in Christ Jesus” (Rom.
3 : 2 6 ) . And the Logos Himself, “for the joy that was set
180
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
before hiin”-the sheer joy of redeeming lost souls who
would be persuaded to enter into covenant relationship
with Him-took upon Himself “flesh and blood” (Heb.
3 : 14- 1I ) , “endured the cross, despising shame” (Heb,
1 2 : 2 ) , “and being found in fashion as a man, humbled
himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death
of the cross” (Phil, 2: 5-1 1 ) . Finally, the Holy Spirit
Himself, throughout the present Dispensation, condescends
to enter and to indwell every obedient soul committed to
the Mind and Will of Christ (John 7: 37-39; Rom. 5 :5 ,
8:27; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19-20; Gal. 3:2) as
the seal of his participation in the duties and privileges of
the New Covenant ( 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 4:30) and
the earnest of his attaining the inheritance of all the saints
in light (Col. 1 :12) , the “inheritance incorruptible and
undefiled .. , reserved in heaven” for them (1 Pet. 1:4).
These numerous Scriptures clearly reveal the fallacy of
associating the Genesis account of the Fall with Babylonian
folklore from which the sublime, doctrines of grace, faith,
redemption, and the Spiritual Life, are conspicuously
absent. To avoid this fallacy, however, one must correlate
the Mosaic account with the teaching of the Bible as a
whole. To fail to do this invariably results in the distor-
tion of the truth. The plain truth is, in the light of
Scripture in its entirety, that iizaiz has izot lost “the chaizce
of inziizortality” at all. Moreover, if huiizaiz iiiziwortality
is a threat of a q i kiiid whatsoever to the souereigiit~i of
God, w h y , theii, did God iiz His Eteriial Purpose m a k e
provisio.rz for it as a n a t w a l rewaifid of the Spiritual L@e
(Col. 3:4, Rom. 14:17)? For example, in Rom. 8:29-30,
we are told explicitly that all those whom God foreknows,
calls, justifies, and glorifies (in His Eternal Purpose: there
is no past, present, or future, with God; only the eternal
vow) , these He foreordains to be conformed to the image
of His Soil (again, in His Eternal Purpose). That is to
say, it was only through the Son’s Divine Begetting (Luke
181
 GENESIS
1 : 3 J ) , Supreme Sacrifice, and Resurrection (as the first-
born from the dead) that life and immortality have been
brought to light through the Gospel (Rom. 8:11, 8:29;
2 Tim. 1:lO; 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16; 1 Cor. 15:20, 2 3 ; Col.
1:18; Heb. 12:23) ; that all of God’s elect shall in the
finality of the Cosmic Process attain “glory and honor
and incorruption, eternal life” (Rom. 2 : 7 ) ,
All the evidence available, either from Scripture teach-
ing or from human experience, seems to make it obvious
that man was mortal from the beginiziizg, that is, created
mortul; and that m lomg us be bad free access t o the Tree
of Life, be had the i n e m s of cozmteracting his mortality.
But what was this Tree of Life? Was it an actually
existing tree, bearing real fruit, of a kind such as we now
apprehend by sense-perception, fruit specificially designed
to renew physical youth and vigor? There is nothing in-
credible in such an interpretation. If God provides food
to renew man’s physical strength, as we know that He does
(Matt. 6: 1 1 ) , why should it be thought incredible that He
should have prepared a special kind of food to renew and
preserve man’s physical youth? According to this view,
the means provided for this purpose was the fruit of the
Tree of Life, and Adam, though mortal by creation, had
this means a t hand always to counteract his mortality.
Thus had he maintained his innocence, and by unswerving
obedience to the Will of God had grown into holiness, we
may suppose that his body would have been transfigured
and translated to Heaven without the intervention of
physical death (its resolution into its physical elements).
Moreover, when he did transgress the law of God, it be-
came imperative that he should be expelled from the
Garden, and that “the way of the tree of life” should be
guarded, in order that in his state of rebelliousness, he
might not gain access to its fruit and so renew his youth;
in a word, that the inherent laws of mortality might work
out their course in his physical constitution (Gen. 3:22-24,
182
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
>
5: , It seems t h a t in view of the possibility of his mak-
ing the fateful choice of transgression above obedience ( I
John 3 :4 ) , Divine Wisdom had already prepared the whole
earth for his occupancy and lord tenancy, as the stage on
which His Plan for Redemption, His Eternal Purpose,
should be executed (Isa, 46:8-11; 1 Cor. 15:20-28; Eph.
3 : 8 - 1 3 , 1:4; Heb. 4:3; 1 Pet, 1:19-20; Rev. 1 3 : 8 , 17:8).
From this general point of view, it is contended by various
Bible scholars that the e n tiw $ o s t c ~ i t yof Adam-all maii.-
kiiid-mcst s u f f e i p physical death becalm they aye so un-
fortiinate as t o be born outside the Gaitden aiid beizce
without access to the f i v i t of this Tree to couiiteract their
moi~tality. (This position is well presented by Brents,
GPS, Ch, 5),
Account must be t a k e n , of course, of the obvious
symbolism of the elements of the Genesis narrative of the
Fall. However, this symbolism is not necessarily weak-
ened by the literal interpretation: in the Bible, real objects
are often used as symbols and metaphors of profound
spiritual truths (e.g., in the parables of Jesus). As stated
heretofore, the correlation of Gen. 2:9, 17 and 3:22-24
with Rev. 2 : 7 aiid 22:2 indicates clearly that the Tree of
Life is to be understood as a symbol of the Logos, man’s
connecting link with the Source of Life (Gen. 2:7; John
1:5.1, 1 0 : 1 0 , 11:25-26, 14:6; 1 John $ : 1 2 ) . Similarly, the
Tree of Knowledge evidently is to be taken as a symbol of
linowledge per se, t h a t is, knowledge that comes from the
actual experience of sin. (Cf. also the discussion of the
Cherubim and the Flaming Sword sujra.) Moreover,
there is a “fall” in every life: this is the old, old story of
what happens to every human being on reaching the age
of reasoning (discretion or accountability) : conscience is
born in the passing from innocence to moral responsibility
(Rom. 3 :23, 5 :12) . Any human act t h a t is motivated by
inordinate physical lust, devotion to the purely sensual, or
desire for illicit knowledge-the temptations that beset
183
 GENESIS
Mother Eve-is a “fall” in the Biblical sense of the term.
The plain truth is-it seems to me-that: Scripture gives us
no clear information as to what might have been man’s
ultimate end had he not chosen to enter upon a course
of rebellion against God.
Occasionally one encounters the statement that man
was created perfect. Now perfection is cowpleteness or
wholeness (from per and facere, “to make thoroughly,”
“to finish,” “to make complete”). It seems evident that
man as he came from the creative Hand of God was
perfect in a personal sense, and in a personal sense only,
that is, in being vested with the powers of thought, feel-
ing and volition, But can it be said that he was morally
perfect? Or, to be more explicit, can it be said rightly
that he was created holy? It seems more reasonable to
hold that he was created innocent, and holiness is defi-
nitely not innocence; rather, it is a moral and spiritual
condition of the inner man that is achieved by obedience
t o the Word; it is the product, not of human passivity,
but of human activity. Again, can holiness be imposed
upon a person from some outside source? I think not. It
is, rather, the fruit of a life of voluntary commitment to
God, in our Dispensation the life that is hid with Christ in
God (Col. 3 : 3 , 2 Cor. 7:1, Rom. 1 2 : l - 2 , 2 Pet. 3 : 1 8 ) ;
in a word, the Spiritual Life which blossoms into the Life
Everlasting.
7.T h e Three States of M a n
Can it be said, then, that man fell “downwardYy-or
did he actually fall “upwardyy?
Alexander Campbell has left some interesting comments
on this problem (LP, 1 1 5 , 116) as follows: “Adam and
Eve were in a state of nature when created by God. They
were primarily in a state of nature, which is always proper.
They could not reasonably aspire to rise above it, in any
relation. If man were in a state of nature, he would be
absolutely perfect. We are aware that natural theology
184
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
(as sonie have it) speaks o f man as now in a state of nature,
But this is an unfortunate error. Man is in a preternat-
ural, or unnatural, state. Adam and Eve only of all the
family of men were ever in a natural state-in other
words, in t h e condition in which they were created by God.
God made the natural state of man; sin and its conse-
quences, the preternatural or unnatural; and the drama of
redemption, the supernatural. Adam and Eve, before the
fall, were natural; after the fall, unnatural, Men have
no power to return to a state of nature, but by grace they
can rise to a supernatural state. These are the definitions
of the true science of man, which it is important t o re-
member.”
From the point of view suggested by Mr. Campbell, it
would seem that the Fall was, in a sense, benevolent in
character-hence, a fall “upward.” It would seem, surely,
t h a t a state of holiness is to be preferred above one of
innocence, a supernatural state above a purely natural
state, It is apparent, moreover, that God predestined man
to be free, that is, to be endowed by creation with the
power of choice. Still and all, insofar as man in the
present world is considered, according to Mr. Campbell’s
view, there was a fall “downward,” from what he desig-
nates the “natural” to what he calls the ccpreternatural”
or ccunnatural.’J Have we a paradox here that cannot be
resolved?
Perhaps we should conclude that the fall was both
“downward” and “upward.” The fall itself was down-
ward, into a state of rebellion against God. But God’s
Love has transformed it (transcended it and its conse-
quences) into a possibility of what might best be called
“upwardness” (John 1:29, 3 : 16) , The upward pull is
no work of man: it is solely the efflux of Divine Grace
(Eph. 2 : 1-10 ) . What man did to himself pushed him
downward; but what God does for him is remedial, to
lift him upward, upward through the Spiritual Life here
185
 GENESIS
into the fulness of union with God in the hereafter, and
hence the recovery of “the lost chance of immortality.”
For Adam and his posterity, God has chosen to override
evil by providing the potentiality of ultimate and com-
plete good (redemption in spirit and soul and body) for
all men who conform to the necessary prerequisites of
conversion (Acts 2:38, Rom. 10:9-10, Gal. 3:27) and the
essentials of the Spiritual Life (Gal. 5:22-25), and who
thus make it possible for Him to be just and a t the same
time the justifier of those who manifest the obedience of
faith in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:26, Gal. 3:2, Jas. 2:20-26).
(Cf. also 1 Thess. 5:23; Matt. J:48; John 17:23; Heb.
12:14, 23). From these truths it is obvious, surely, that
no possibility exists of man’s lifting himself u p to glory
and honor and incorruption simply by tugging a t his own
bootstraps. There is no promise of Divine overruling of
evil for those who persist in neglect and disobedience and
wickedness throughout this life. For them there remains
only “a certain fearful expectation of judgment” (Rom.
2 : 8 - 9 , Heb. 10:27, 2 Thess. 1:7-.10).
It must be conceded, of course, that the concept of a
fall ccupward,’yso to speak, from a condition of innocence
t o one of the potentiality of holiness is more in accord
with evolutionism than the traditional concept of a fall
“downward.” But here, as usual, when we reach the
depths of the mysteries of God, we are confronted with
the inadequacy of human language to provide precise
word-symbols for the concepts involved. In the use of
such terms as “natural,” ‘‘unnatural,” “preternatural,”
t c supernatural,” and the like, in their inter-relationships of

meaning, we find ourselves bogged down in semantics: and

the road of sheer semanticism usually leads to a dead end.
The question arises: Could not our first parents have con-
tinued in their unvitiated natural state by maintaining
unbroken obedience to God and so have attained holiness
without the necessity of a pilgrimage through this world
186
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
of sin, suffering, senescence, and death, and would this
ultiinate state have been any less “supernatural” than the
holiness ultimately to be attained through the fall and
the recovery (redemption) ? And to what extent is the
redemption of the body, the putting on of immortality,
involved in all this? This reasoning in turn might lead us
to tlie uiiaiiswerable “dead eiid” insofar as human reason
and experience are concerned: Why was inaii clothed in a
physical, instead of aii ethereal body (like that of angels?)
in tlie first place? We caiiiiot avoid the coiiclusioii, it
seems to me, t h a t Creation and Redemption are the two
grand divisions of tlie Plan of the Universe. Redemption,
tlieref ore, presupposes sometliing, some change of interior
state, which can only be rightly designated a “fall.”
Moreover, the coricepi of a fall rrdowiiward” is iizdubiiably
implicit in ihc faci of the birth of couscjeiice, aiid the iia-
feiioip state itself caii hardly be pmfierly designated amy-
fhiiig o f l x v ihaii a state of depravity.
8. “Pivdesfinecl To Be Five”
(1) This felicitous phrase I have borrowed from a
sermon by my good friend, Dr. Jaines F. Jauncey. Man
was predestined, and therefore created, to be free, that
is, to 11ave the power of choice; and obviously spiritual
growth aiid maturity are attainable only by personal choice,
choice of the Way of Christ and of personal commitment
to it; in a word, choice of the Spiritual Life (John 14:6;
Matt. 7:13-14; Acts 1 8 : 2 8 , 19:23). This means that
Adam and Eve were endowed a t creation with the power
of choice. What, then, was to prevent their coiitiiiuiiig
in uiibrokeii fellowship with God ? Nofhing, absolzntely
17otking, bit f fheiif owii wills. (Recall Trueblood7s per-
tinent remark (PR, 25 1) : “Evil is t h e price we pay for
moral freedom.”) The first sin was tlie terminus of the
human choice to rebel against God, to put self above God,
even though the choice was elicited under t h e pressure
of Satanic temptation, As stated previously, there is no
187
 GENESIS
hope for the Devil and his angels: they sinned of their
own free volition, uninfluenced from without; hence they
are totdly depraved, held in the everlasting bonds of this
depravity unto the Judgment of the Great Day (Jude 6,
2 Pet. 2:4, Acts 17:30-31). But there was hope for our
first parents, because they were in great measure seduced
by outside agency; hence, for them and their kind God
could consistently temper justice with mercy (Rom. 8 :1-
4 ) . The fact remains, however, that no necessity was im-
posed upon Adam and Eve t o sin against God: their choice
of the wrong way was their own choice, but they could
have chosen otherwise. Their wills were not burglarized
by the Almighty. The same is true of the all (human-
kind) “who have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God” (Rom. 3 : 2 3 ) . M a n was predestined t o be free, not
to be enslaved to sin.
( 2 ) But-does man actually have this power of choice?
Fatalistic, necessitarian, deterministic, “mechanistic” cults
have flourished in all ages, the common denominator of
which is the view that he is under the compulsion of forces
over which he has no control; in a word, that free will
is an illusion. If this be true, obviously there can be no
such thing as morality, as democracy, or even as scientific
inquiry, in the full sense of these terms. Perhaps we
should try to define freedom. What does it mean to man
to have the power of choice? This writer defines freedom
as the p o w e r (not necessarily the r i g h t ) which a human
being-a person-has (a) to act or not to act, or (b) to
act in one way instead of another, given the circumstances,
in the form of motives, for such action. As Roberts writes
(PC, 6 ) : “The practical problems with which life con-
fronts every one of us are questions as to which of two
.
or more . , attractive possibilities we shall choose. Where
there is no choice, there is no problem. If there ever is
really only one thing to be done, there is no uncertainty.
We do it. If we hesitate a t all, it is because we suspect
188
T H E BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON E A R T H
there my be another possibility. When we review and
appraise action, OUT own or otliers’, it never occurs to us
to praise or blame actions which could not have been
other than they were. Whatever is truly necessary is
iieither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong,” As R,
A, MacIver puts it (STC, J 2 0 ) : “To live is to act, and t o
act is to choose, aiid to choose is to evaluate,” Perhaps a
simple illustration will suffice here: To what extent is a
man “in charge of himself” when he is falling from a
twenty-story building? Obviously, he is not in charge of
himself at all; rather, he is helpless in the throes of that
mysterious physical compulsion known as gravity. O n
the other hand, to what extent is the same man “in charge
of himself” in solving a complex mathematical problem?
Evidently this is a mental process in which he is in charge
of himself throughout. Freedom means that, in some
measure, the person is in charge of himself when he acts.
To be sure, freedom is necessarily limited by the circum-
ference of a person’s acquaintanceship. A Hottentot, or
any other person, who has never heard of ice, could hardly
choose to go skating. One could not be expected to choose
aiiythiiig of which he is entirely ignorant.
( 3 ) Freedom is iiot rcmolLiueless action,” that is, the
ability to deliberate or choose without motives. If the will
were free in this sense, we should never exhort a person
to do this or that: we should realize that such exhortations
would accomplish nothing. We do not exhort the winds
to blow in this or t h a t direction: we realize that the winds
are p o t influenced by motives. But because the will is
free, we do urge and exhort, and by exhortation we pre-
sent to it motives. Freedom of will means, not that the
will is uiideteiviiiiied, nor t h a t it is f d / 3 1 determined by
some power other than itself, but that it is self -determiized.
(4) Fwedowz of will, negatively defiized, is inziizuiiity
froiiz iiecessity. Natural physical law is indeed stamped on
the lower nature of man aiid governs all those movements
189
 GENESIS
of man which are not ordinarily subject to his volitional
activity (e.g., metabolism, respiration, digestion, assimila-
tion, circulation of the blood, etc.). Nevertheless, man is
physically free in his will; a t the same time, however, he
is morally bound: that is, bound by the moral law which
determines his relationships and their corresponding rights
and duties. Free will, then, is immunity from necessity
within the framework in which choice can be made: im-
munity from necessity ( a ) of choosing this instead of that
object or end, and (b) of making any choice a t all. Any
normal person realizes, even when deciding on a wroizg
course od conduct, that he ’is capable of choosing the right
course: in a word, that his choice is not necessitated. This
is just common sense.
( 5 ) A free act is a self-determined g e t . An act of will
which is necessitated in the will by forces of the inner
nature, or one which is forced upon it by violence from
without (if that were possible: one might be compelled
to give to a burglar the combination of a safe, but he
would not do it willingly) is plainly not under the control
of the “I”; therefore, such an act is not a human act.
Such acts as those of a madman, or those done in sleep,
are not hwmaiz acts, because in such cases the will is not
free. Freedom to act in one way implies prior power of
the will (person) to have acted in another, even in the
opposite, way.
( 6 ) F r e e d o m attaches o d y t o a person. Negley writes
(OK, 8 5 ) : “I suggest that Liberty is the concept most
appropriate to Person. As a value principle, Liberty means,
briefly, the guarantee to individuals of as much freedom of
thought and action as is consistent with the exercise of an
equal freedom by other men.” Liberty is personal freedom
exercised in relation to other persons. In political think-
ing, liberty signifies generally the absence of external re-
straint. Complete absence of external restraint would, of
course, be anarchy.
190
T H E BEGINNING OF PIlYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
(7) Necessitariaiiisin is the doctrine that all effects fol-
low invariably their prior causes, and especially t h a t t h e
human will does not have any freedom of choice, (The
doctrine that the human will i s iree (especially, to the
extent of a person’s knowledge) is linowii as volmtlrris~w) ,
Necessitarianism takes o m of two forms: ( a ) t h a t in which
inan is supposed to be under the rigid control of a pre-
determining will, which is known in secular terms as
fatalism (whatever may be signified by such t e r m as
“fate” or “fortune”) , and which is lsnown in theological
circles as pi.edestiiiarianisiia (absolute control of all events
by t h e Deity) ; and (b) and that which supposes t h a t all
effects are invariably determined by their respective ante-
cedent impersonal causes, the view which is generally desig-
nated detewiziiiism. Determinism is simply the denial of
freedom of initiatory action in man. The determinists
tell us that in order to freedom of will, man must have
the power t o do what he chooses to do, and in the doing
much be free from all external or internal constraints.
They ask: Are all these conditions ever met a t one and
the same moment? Their own answer is, No, They tell
us t h a t if o m could know all the factors involved in the
personality development of any human being, it would
be possible t o predict his “decisionyyin any given situation
which appareiitly demands his making a choice. Of
course, the feeling t h a t one has made such a decision be-
comes in deterministic lingo a n ‘‘illusion.’’ (Notice should
be taken especially of the “if” involved in this supposition.
I t is euideiit that 110 oiie caii e v e y lltiiow all the f a c t o n
iwolved the deuelojmeii t of aiiyoiie’s jersoiiality f r o m
iii
nzoiizeiit to ~ how, etc. Such a n
moiii,eiit, f r o m h o i , ~to
analysis is utterly impossible; hence the whole theory rests
on imponderables and not on available facts. Moreover,
every huinaii being is a n iiidiuidiral, That is to say, no
two persons are ever duplicated; every person is unique in
t h a t he is different from-an othei. to-every other person.
191
 GENESIS
There is no possible way by which my experiences, memor-
ies, emotions, thoughts, ‘and decisions can become your
experiences, memories, emotions, thoughts and decisions.
As Emerson has said: “Nature never rhymes her children
or makes two men alike.” And as Dr. Allport has writ-
ten (PPI, 4, 5 ) : “In everyday life, the scientist, like any-
one else, deals effectively with his fellow men only by
recognizing that their peculiar natures are not adequately
represented in his discovery. The single functions which
they have in common are deeply overshadowed by the in-
dividual use to which they put these functions. The piling
of law upon law does not in the slightest degree account
for the pattern of individuality which each human being
enfolds. The person who is a unique and never-repeated
phenomenon evades the traditional scientific approach a t
every step. In fact, the more science advances, the less
do its discoveries resemble the individual life with its patent
continuities, mobility, and reciprocal penetration of func-
tions.” “Each self is simply a unique existence which is
perfectly impervious to other selves-impervious in a
fashion of which the impenetrability of matter is a faint
analogue” (Illingworth, PHD, 30) .
( 8 ) Theoretically, determinism is of three kinds: ( a )
khysicd (that all natural events are reducible ultimately
to physiochemical action: thus the human being is defined
Ct
as a locus in the movement continuum, constituting a
relatively permanent electron-proton aggregate-the atoms,
molecules, and tissues of the body-interacting with the
electron-proton systems not with the body,” etc.-A. I?.
Weiss, TBHB, pp. 3 9 0 - 3 9 2 ) ; (b) biological (that gene
combinations determine all physical, temperamental, and
mental chartcteristics, and hence all human behavior) ; and
( c ) Psychologicd (that which finds the sources of neces-
sitarianism in unconscious forces and factors, “hidden mo-
tives”). Perhaps the most clear-cut presentation of a strict
determinism is given us in a book, novelistic in character,
192
THE BEGINNING 01:PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
entitled Waldeii Two, by the Harvard psychologist, B, F,
Skiiiiier (who is currently revered as a kind of demigod
in many psychology circles) , Joseph Collignon, reviewing
t h e book, in an article in Sati/.~dayReuiew, June 27, 1964,
suiiiiiiarizes Skinner’s thesis as follows : “B. F, Skiiiner sees,
as Dostoievsky’s Grand Inquisitor saw, t h a t the masses are
incapable of freedom, and t h a t inaii must be relieved of
guilt if he is to be happy. Waldeii Two eliminates guilt
by eliminating sin, Man is an animal t h a t can be condi-
tioned to gratify his desires within the framework of the
complexity of social needs. Proper conditioning eliminates
the need for choice-if, indeed, choice does exist. ‘Choice’
becomes an automatic response. If the animal becomes
depressed or anxious-by chance, not choice-psychiatrists
are available.” The holes in this thesis, it seems to me, are
t h e following: Just what is meant by piwper conditioning?
What are to be taken as the i i . o ~ ~ i i zof
s proper condition-
ing? Who are to decide what these norms are? Indeed
how could any group “decide” anything under this view.
It follows, too, t h a t Sliinner’s “decision” to write the book,
including, to be sure, all the thoughts, words, phrases,
etc., incorporated in the book-all this must have been
t h e product of chance, not of choice. It is really amazing
how silly some Ph.D.’s can become, especially when one
is pursuing the exploitation of his own dearly beloved brain-
child. (It has been said rightly t h a t the difference be-
tween the inan who rides a horse and t h e man who rides
a hobby is that the former has sense enough to dismount
occasionally to let his horse rest, whereas the man who
rides a hobby persists in riding it t o death. This is espe-
cially true of the intelligentsia and their theoretical hob-
bies. Professor C. D. Broad once remarked that the theory
of determinism is so absurd t h a t only a very learned man
could have conjured it up.
( 9 ) Desceiidiiig from the “ethereal mansions” of abstract
speculation to the earthly plaiie of practical thinking, what
193
 GENESIS
is the testimony of man’s common sense with respect to his
own freedom of action? To ask this question is to answer
it : conzinoi~seiise has izevey yielded to deternziwistic theo-
ries. Common sense has always held as facts of experience
( a ) the substantial existence and personal identity of the
self, and (b) freedom of will in human conduct. To
think, or a t least to act otherwise would be to manifest
incipient insanity and in all probability to run afoul of
the civil law. Observatioa, introspection, and experience
in general, all point in the direction of these two facts of
human self hood and self -determination. It is freely ad-
mitted, of course, that human action takes place within
a framework of hereditary and environmental factors.
But the commonsense view is that in addition to these two
sets of factors, there is, in every human act, the personal
equation: that is, the reaction of the self as a unitary
whole, reaction which terminates in the will and in the
overt act. I am convinced that I do choose, and every
sane person has the same conviction. As Illingworth has
written (PHD, 3 J - 3 6 ) : “We ground our belief in free-
dom on two things-its immediate self-evidence in con-
sciousness and its progressive self -justification in morality
-the way in which its moral results approve themselves
to the universal reason of mankind; and we are confident
that no contrary argument can be constructed without
surreptitiously assuming what it attempts to disprove.
Lucretius was obliged to allow his atoms the power of
swerving, And when Hobbes defines the will as ‘the last
appetite in deliberation,’ he concedes by the latter word
what he intends to deny by the former. And so it is with
the later necessitarians. Their analysis is more elaborate
and possesses the attraction for certain minds of any at-
tempt t o explain the primary aspect of a thing ingeniously
away. But they have been convicted again and again,
either of ignoring the point a t issue, or begging in one
phase or other, the question to be proved; while their
194
TI-IE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
success, if it were possible, would only land them in the
old dilemma, that by invalidating coiisciousiiess they in-
validate all power of reasoning, aiid with it the value of
their own coiiclusioiis,”
(10) Life and personality are not amendable to inech-
aiiistic laws ; tlie stronger motive is stronger because it
is in greater accord with the desire and will of the person
inakiiig the choice (aiid in too inaiiy cases, unfortunately,
in greater accord with his desire than with his reason or
better judgment). Life aiid thought surge on and func-
tion qualitatively-f ar above the inere quantitative mech-
anistic level. Perhaps this is the reason why the conviction
of personal freedom is innate and uiishakable in man. His
ideas, institutions, and laws are all predicated upon it. If
any one of the theorists who deny free will were to
commit a crime, certainly he would be treated by society-
t h a t is, indicted, tried, and maybe convicted and executed
-as if he wew f i v e t o act aiid therefore respomible for
his deeds. His deterministic theory would avail him noth-
ing before t h e civil law, nor would it avail him anything
before the moral law. Iinagine a man on trial for murder,
pleading his case before tlie judge in these words: “Your
honor, I alii innocent. The laws of heredity and environ-
ment committed this crinie--I did not commit it.” I
have the feeling t h a t the judge, in response t o a plea so
asinine, would turn him over t o the proper authorities for
psychiatric examination aiid treatment. The fact is, of
course, t h a t the inaii gave t h e lie to his whole argument
the moment he used the “I,” the personal pronoun. Any-
one making such a defense would becoine the laughing-
stock of t h e whole coininunity! Those who preach de-
terminism know, while they are preaching it, that it is
false; they never treat themselves or their children as inere
machines. Let us hear C. D. Broad again (in Muirhead,
Corrtenzj’ioifarji Bititisb Pbiloso$by, p. 98) : “If a inan re-
ferred t o his brother or to his cat as ‘an ingenious mech-
19 T
 GENESIS
anism,’ we should know that he was either a fool or a
physiologist. N o one in practice treats himself or his
fellow men or his pet animals as machines; but scientists
who have never made a study of speculative philosophy
seem often to think it is their duty to hold up in theory
what no one outside a lunatic asylum would accept in
practice. ”
(11) Man knows from immediate experience that he
possesses this power of choice. Against determinism is set
“the immediate affirmation of consciousness in the moment
.
of deliberate action . . I find it impossible not to think
that I can now choose” (Sidgwick). As William James
vigorously contends, our consciousness of freedom and the
fact of regret for wrongdoing are the immediate facts
of human experience; the world must have moral coher-
ence as well as logical coherence. And Bergson argues
with great eloquence that life is basically a flow in which
the free spirit of man is constantly emerging as a victor,
expressing itself in art, in science, in religion, and in free
political institutions. I know, and every person who will
be honest with himself knows, that one makes choices
between alternatives every day, every hour, even every
few minutes, This we know from immediate experience,
and to deny such knowledge is to manifest wilful igno-
rance. We may not, and indeed do not, know the extent
t o which forces of heredity and forces of environment
enter into personal motivation and personal choice, but we
know that we do choose. Freedom is not determinism;
it is not indeterminism; it is self-determirzism. The two
essential properties of person and personality are self -
consciousness and self -determination; the latter is prop-
erly defined as that power by which the self, the I, de-
termines its own acts.
( 1 2 ) The problem may be stated best, perhaps, as fol-
lows: As far as this writer knows, no one questions the
fact of the interplay of forces of heredity and forces of
196
TI-IE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
eiivironinent in the building of personality, The new-
born babe is comparable, let us say, to a blank tablet
(tabula rma) , He has all the potentialities of person and
personality, but at first these are latent, waiting to be
actualized, Hence as the child matures, through the in-
teraction of these hereditary and enviroiimental factors,
the time arrives when he senses a distinction between tlie
m e and tlie not-me. This is tlie first glimmer of self-
consciousness. And as this distinction becomes more
obvious, the awareness of self becomes correspondingly
more potent and becomes per se the determining factor in
human motivation aiid action. Hence, the fact is that
in every choice three factors are involved, namely, heredity
and eiiviroiimeiit (the forces of which are largely im-
ponderables) plus t h e personal reaction. In the final
analysis, i t is the person, the I, who tips the scales in one
direction, toward one alternative, in preference to an-
other. We do not say, My eyes see, m y ears hear, etc.,
but we say, I see aiid I hear; we are equally right in saying
that I choose, I decide, I act, etc. Present effects follow
from prior causes, to be sure; but the fact overlooked or
ignored by the determinist is that the Self (the I ) is one
of those causes, indeed the efficient cause. As Kemeny
has written (PLS, pp. 221-226) : “We could restate the
deterministic argument by saying t h a t we cannot have a
free choice because the Law of Nature says what the out-
come of our clioice will be. If i t is already ‘written,’
then we have no real choice. The Law is not something
binding, but a simple description of all events, past, pres-
ent and future. Among other things it describes how we
choose. This is t h e only reason why our decision must be
in accordaiice with it. It would be just as correct, and
perhaps less misleading, to say t h a t the Law of Nature
depends on our choice, instead of the reverse.” That is
to say, again, t h a t “we are predestined to be free.”
197
 GENESIS
( 1 3 ) Kant, the German philosopher, held that freedom
is not a natural inheritance of man; rather, that in order
to have freedom we must create it for ourselves. If man,
he says, were to follow his natural bent, he would not
strive for freedom; he would choose dependence instead.
It is much easier to depend on others to think, judge and
decide for us, and so man is inclined t o look upon freedom
as a burden rather than a privilege. “Here the totalitarian
state and the political myth step in” (Cassirer). In his
chapter, “The Grand Inquisitor,’’ Dostoievsky, in his novel,
T h e Brothers Karainnzov, perhaps the most profoundly
searching psychological novel ever written, pictures the
Inquisitor as meeting Jesus of Nazareth on the streets of
the Spanish city of Seville and as chiding Him for having
resisted the appeals of the Devil. By doing this, the In-
quisitor argued, Jesus had condemned men to the assump-
tion of responsibility, a burden which they did not want
to bear. Men are naturally happy, the Inquisitor went on
to say, only when they have no responsibilities, when they
can live the life of grasshoppers floating downstream, so
to speak. This, of course, is the negative way of putting
before us the truth that with freedom necessarily goes re-
sponsibility. Unlimited freedom in any area of life
would be equivalent to total irresponsibility and this in
turn would be equivalent to complete anarchy. Obviously,
if this be the true view of human character, there can be
little hope for the future of democracy.
(14) If man does not have freedom of will, at least
within a certain framework, then he is not responsible for
anything he does; and if not morally responsible, then all
his laws and all his courts and all his mechanisms of en-
forcement are but pompous vanities. If man does not
have and exercise free will, then Might becomes Right,
and there can be no such thing as morality, no such thing
as real democracy, not even any science itself as free in-
quiry. This would mean, of course, man’s abandonment
198
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
of all pretension to social order and his adoption of t h e
ways of the jungle, (But even tlie evolutionist will agree
that man has advanced beyond the brute stage,) We
affirm, therefore, with Brennan, that “no power outside
of will-either inaterial force or physiological reflex, or
iiistiiictive urge, or even intellect itself-can so determine
tlie human will as to leave it trapped and helpless in the
face of superior ageiicies” (TP, 2 2 0 ) . As Sullivan re-
marks (LS, 186) : “AS things are, biology’s main coiitribu-
tioii to our theoretical understanding of the world is t h e
stale and unlikely surmise t h a t a living organism will t u r n
out to be nothilig but a inecliaiiical system,” cf. also
Negley (OK,20) : The argument t h a t men are in tlie grip
of conditioiied bcliavior-patterns from which there is no
escape rests upon a description of experieiice which is simple
t o the point of simplemindedness.”
( ~ r The
) following somewhat lengthy excerpt from the
pen of Dr. Will Duraiit (MI’, 100-102) is a fitting sum-
marization of the problem before us: “The determinist
will recall the conservation of energy; the organism cannot
emit more energy than it has received. Which is to forget
that life itself is energy, visibly transforming the forces
and materials brought to it into combiiiations that aim at
the mastery of environment by thought, and occasionally
succeed. What issues from action may be no more in
quantity than what entered in sensation; but how different
in quality! This transforming power of life is the highest
energy we know; it is known to us more directly and
surely than any other energy in the world; and is the
source and promise of OUT modest freedom. The determiii-
ist supposes t h a t freedom is illustory because the ‘stronger’
motive always wins. Of course this is a vain tautology; tlie
motive that is strong enough to win is stronger than those
that fail. But what made it stronger if iiot its harmony
with the will, with tlie desire and essence of the soul?-
‘Yet there cannot be any uncaused actions.’ Verily; but
199
 GENESIS
the will is part of the cause; the circumstances of an
action must include the forward urgency of life. Each
‘state’ of mind follows naturally from the total preceding
state of all reality; but that state and this include the
transforming energy of life and will.-‘The same effect
always follows the same cause.’ But the cause is never
the same, for the self involved is always in flux, and
circumstances are forever changing.-‘If I knew all your
past and present I could infallibly predict your response.’
You could if you knew also the nature and power of the
life-force within me; you could, perhaps, if you abandoned
mechanistic principles and asked yourself, for your guid-
ance, what you--i.e., life-would do in this complex of
circumstance. Probably you could not predict success-
fully even then; probably there is in life an element of
incalculability and spontaneity which does not accord with
our categories and our ‘laws,’ and which gives peculiar zest
and character to organic evolution and human affairs.
Let us pray that we shall never have to live in a totally
predictable world. Does not the picture of such a world
seem ridiculously incongruous with life-mechanism in
life being, as Bergson said, a passing jest?--‘But all action
is the result of heredity and environment.’ Not quite;
the determinist modestly fails to take account of himself.
He supposes once motre that life is the passing product
of external forces; he neglects (if we may use a pleonasm)
the very vitality and liveliness of life. We are not merely
our ancestors and our iircumstances; we are also wells of
transforming energy, we are parts of that stream of direc-
tive force, of capacity for adaptive choice and thought, in
which our forefathers also moved and had their being.
These ancestors are in truth living and acting within us;
but the will and the life that were once in them is in each
of us now, creating the ‘spontaneous me.’ . . . Will is
free in so far as it is creative, in so far as it enters, with
its remoulding energy, as o?ze of the determining condi-
200
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
tioiis of choice aiid action, There is 110 violation of ‘natural
law’ in such a freedom, because life itself is a iiatural
factor aiid process, not a force outside tlie varied realm
of nature, Nature itself, as its fine name implies, is that
living power through which all things are begotten; prob-
ably throughout tlie world this spontaiieity and urgency
lurk which we have claimed €or life; how else could life
have acquired i t ? To say that o w chavacters determine
0111’ actioiis is tivie, Biit we a w O I I Y characters; if is we,
then, that choose.” (Italics mine-C.C.)
( 16) Voluiitariness is the actual exercise of freedom.
The act of choice is the act of the person, a n act stem-
ming from tlie interaction of thought aiid desire, and
accompanied by the set of the self toward the end-in-view.
This is what is meant by the h i m a n act: it is the act
which involves prior deliberation, freedom, and voluntari-
ness. The person does chooes between motives, but within
the framework of hereditary aiid environmental factors.
Adam and Eve had a choice t o make between Divine
ordinance and Satanic persuasion ; though they could have
done otherwise, they chose Satan, lust, sin, and death, and
thus their choice brought illto operation God’s iiief f able
grace (Eph. 2 : 8 ) in His actualizing of His Plaii of Re-
demption, lest mail-the creature who bears His image
and who is the supreme object of His love-should be lost
forever (John 3 :16-17) . (We shall look iiifru at the
problem of t h e relation between Divine foreordination
and foreknowledge on t h e one hand, and human freedom
aiid voluiitariiiess on the other.)
9. Soine Pertiiieiit &vestions which arise in coniiectioii
with the Genesis Narrative of t h e Fall are the following:
(1) Wh31did God create ii2aii cakabile of falling? To
this w e reply: ( a ) That it is difficult to see how God
could have created a i ~ a i ?incapable of falling. If i n a n is
to be a moral creature in any sense of the term, subject to
moral goveriiiiieiit (law), he must have freedom of choice
201
 GENESIS
to some extent, which surely would include freedom to
choose between good and evil, right and wrong. Lacking
this Power, h e would not be man. (b) That man’s fall
made it possible for the actualizing of the Divine Plan of
Redemption the essence of which would be the Atonement,
the supreme demonstration of God’s love for the creature
He had created in His own image. Moreover, by means
of this Remedial System, not only has God’s love, but
Satan’s total depravity as well, been demonstrated to all
intelligent beings of the universe. God overruled evil for
good in the sense that He made use of the Fall for benevo-
lent ends. John Wild (IRP, 3 8 5 ) : “Either we are free
and sometimes choose wrongly, in which case the divine
purpose is frustrated, or we are always made to choose in
the proper way, in which case we are not really free.”
Trueblood (PR, 3 5 1 ) : “Evil is the price we pay for moral
freedom . . . the limitation on God’s working, which
accounts for the presence of evil, is due, not to the n a t w e
of things, but to the natzire of goodmess.” Thompson
(MPR, 497) : “Although no morally evil act is itself neces-
sary yet it may be necessary that evil should occur in a
world of free but finite agents.” Again (ibid.,507-508) :
“A world free of evil would have to be a world which
contained nothing capable of evil. . . . Not eveiz God caiq
love n puppet.” Plato, in the Tinzaeus, would have us
believe that the creation of the world was “the victory
of persuasion over force.” This is a doctrine that Christian
theologians can ill afford to overlook. Undoubtedly, as
far as man can ascertain, God’s will to give man freedom
of will has made evil possible. However, God does not
make it a practice generally to override human freedom of
choice, for the obvious reason that for Him to do this, in
view of His endowment of man with this power, would
be the very height of inconsistency. Rather, God resorts
to persuasion: hence the Gospel (Rev. 14:6--(‘eternal good
202
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
iiews”) is the powelf of God i ~ t osalvafioii f o eveysone
that believes (Rom, 1: 16) , The Gospel embodies God’s
persuasive, rather tliaii his c o c w h e , power. (Cf, Luke
1:8-13, Matt. 28:18-20, Rom. 10:4-1S, 1 Cor. 1:20-25,
2 Cor, 5:17-21, 1 Tim, 2:3-4, etc,).
(2) Why did iiof God iirteirfere aifd keep wai5 fffoi?a
falliiig irito siii? To this we reply: ( a ) the fact t h a t God
did i i o t interfere is conclusive evidence t h a t He should 7 7 0 t
have done so. For man even t o question the Divine In-
telligeiice and Will is sheer presumption, (b ) Temptation
is not t h e caidse, but the TOO^, of a n inlier disloyalty (cf,
Matt. 5 :28, 1 John 3 : 15 ) . To the extent t h a t the human
heart is loyal (1 Cor, 15:58) temptation has little power
over it. It follows, therefore, that temptation serves pri-
marily to reveal our real interior selves to us and to our
fellow men, ( c ) If God had interposed His power in t h e
first teinptatioii and so prevented m a n from disobedience,
to act consistently He would be compelled to interfere
in all similar cases; otherwise, He would be a respecter of
persons, which by the authority of His own Word He is
iiot (Acts 10:34, Rom. Z : l l , 1 Pet. 1:17). In effect,
this would be to set aside natural order and to govern the
moral universe by force (miracle) .
( 3 ) How could so feivjible a perialfy justly have beeif
coiiiiecfed with disobedieiice t o s 7 ~ hai? ufiparently friuial
coiriiiiaiid? To this we reply: ( a ) The very simplicity of
the corninaid enhanced the importance of t h e loyalty test
involved, and so made disobedience all the more repre-
hensible. Adam and Eve could not have failed to under-
stand the simple prohibition required of them ; hence, their
disobedieiice arose out of sheer disloyalty. The overt act
of rebellion was, therefore, t h e revelation of a will cor-
rupted by lust. This fact the guilty yair themselves
recognized as evident from their attempt to hide from
God’s presence.
203
 GENESIS
4. Does not the fall of man, and its consequences, prove
the Creation to have been a failure? Most emphatically,
it does molt. T h e real success of any undertaking, divine
or human, is t o be determined by the achievement of the
desired ultimate end in view (Isa. 46:s-10). The end
sought, bo,th i n Creation and in Redemption (Generation
and Regeneration) is ( a ) God’s own glory in His vindi-
cation from the false charges brought against Him by
Satan and his rebel hosts, and (b) man’s eternal Beatitude,
which is inseparably linked with God’s glory (Eph. 3:8-
1 2 ) . Therefore, if one, and only one, saint is revealed in
the Judgment, redeemed in spirit and soul and body (1
Thess. 5:23, 1 Cor. 6:19-20), the process of discomfiting
Satan which began at Calvary will be gloriously consum-
mated (Rom. 12:19, 16:20; Deut. 32:25; 1 Cor. 6:2-3,
15:26). In short, the greatness of God’s Plan of Redemp-
tion is to be measured, not by the number of the saved
(Matt. 7:14), but by the sheer wonder of the salvation
to be revealed a t the last great Day (Acts 3:20-21; 1
Cor. 2:6-10, 1 5 : 5 0 - 5 8 ; Rev. 20-11-12, 21-1-6, 2 2 : l - 5 ) .
:6 * * >6 *
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
Lessons From the Story of the Fall
The most poignant “human interest” stories in literature
are to be found in the Bible, and of these the account
of man’s Temptation and Fall is second to none. Note
the following practical lessons to be learned from this
Genesis narrative:
1 I t poiizts up the havoc that can be wrought by a single
act of disobedience t o God. As a consequence of man’s
first act of rebellion against God, the race has suffered toil,
sorrow, disease, and death universally.
“ ’Twas but a little drop of sin
We saw this morning enter in,
And lo, a t eventide a world is drowned.’’
204
“social gospel,” the “religion of humanicy,’’ “salvation by
character,” ad iii,fiiirituiia,ad nauseam. There is one, and
 GENESIS
are now rivers themselves) forms a great river. Follow
the course of this river past the peaceful hills and fertile
valleys of Southern Ohio, past the place where it is joined
by the Miami, past the southern border of Hoosierdom to
the point where this now rapidly swelling river is united
with the torrents of the Wabash, and by the time one
reaches Cairo, Illinois, those waters which once stole
quietly down their respective mountainsides in Pennsyl-
vania and in West Virginia, are lost in raging billows of
the mighty “Father of Waters,” whence they find their
way into the Gulf of Mexico and ultimately into the bosom
of the great deep. So it is with moral influence. We
repeat that it is only reasonable that a man who sets in
motion a scheme of sin that will damn the souls of his
fellow creatures in eternity, should suffer a punishment
as timeless as the consequences of his sins, Eternal punish-
ment is both Scriptural and reasonable. Indeed we not
only believe that what is Scripturally recorded is true
because it is in the Bible, but we believe also that what is
recorded in the Bible is ita the Bible because it is true, that
is, in harmony with the very nature of things. Men do not
like the doctrine of Hell because they are unwilling to
admit that; they are sinners.
3 . I t poiizts u p the folly o f trying to hide o w s i m fYom
God. Adam and Eve tried to hide their guilt; so did Cain
(Gen. 3:9-15); so did King Saul (1 Sam. l r ) ; so did
Achan (Josh. 7 ) ; so did Ananias and Sapphira (Acts
5 : 1- 11) -and they all failed miserably. Num. 3 2 :23-
“Be sure your sin will find you outyy(Luke 8:17, 1 Tim.
5:24-25), It is far better to flee to God when we sin,
than to try to run from Him. It is far better t o go to
Him with open confession, as did the Prodigal Son, because
confession is the shortest road to forgiveness (Luke 15:21,
1 John 1: 7 ) . David could say from personal experience,
Psa. 32 :l--“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.” And the beloved John testifies:
206
 THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous t o
forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous-
iiess” (1 John 1: 9 ) . Catharsis is t h e only remedy for the
burden of guilt.
4. I t provides a meaniirgfiil prototype of Everyirtan’s
exfierielwe with sin. Even though we regard the story o f
the Fall of Man as being essentially historical, we should
not miss the profound spiritual teaching embodied in it,
the aspect which is in fact the more important. This
account in the third chapter of Genesis portrays vividly the
manner by which sin gains entrance into the soul, and
the consequences t h a t ensue. At first, the suggestion may
’
be very subtle, but once entertained, it bears evil fruit.
Just as the disease germ enters the body, and, on finding
conditions favorable, germinates and produces sickness and
death, so the germ of sin (which usually takes the form of
questioning God’s goodness) entering the soul, if it finds
even the least favorable condition, will ultimately breed
vice and crime. We should avoid exposing ourselves to
needless temptations, because human character is never so
strong as to be able to resist Satan’s subtlety under all
circumstances. Me should keep our inner lives so strong,
by feeding on the Bread of Life who came down from
Heaven (John G:3J, 48) , that is, the Logos, the Word,
t h a t the germ of sin cannot readily find breeding-places
in them. The prayer, “And bring us not into tempta-
tion” (Matt. G:13) has real significance when viewed in
this light,
5 , I t points up the folly of failing to p w t God first iiz
all things. The Scriptures intimate that Eve was the first
to sin, and t h a t Adam, partly out of sympathetic affec-
tion, followed her into the transgression (I Tim. 2 :13- 14) .
There are, there have always been, sheer multitudes who
prefer Hell with their relatives to Heaven with God.
Adam had the opportunity of parting company with his
wife and remaining true to God. Sapphira had the same
207
 GENESIS
opportunity, but she, like Adam, preferred her spouse
above the Lord. People seem never to realize that faith,
obedience, salvation, worship, etc., are personal (individ-
ual) matters. Lot seems to have been the one Bible per-
sonage who exercised good judgment in this respect. When
the Divine order came to him and his family to flee
Sodom and not look back under any circumstances, Lot
obeyed. He did not even look back to see what was
happening to his wife (Gen. 19)-he was too busily en-
gaged in working out his own salvation, no doubt “with
fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12), Jesus’ teaching on this
matter is too explicit for either conjecture or doubt (Matt.
10:34-39, Luke 14:26, Mark 3 : 3 1 - 3 ? ) . There is no
such thing in God’s Plan as salvation by proxy.
6 . I t shows that God never intended that maiz a i d
w o m a n should be placed in cowpetition with each other
in uny area of life. Eve was created t o be the man’s
counterpart, a helper meet for his needs. This teaches
us that her position is complementary, not competitive.
As his counterpart, she is neither his superior nor his in-
ferior. If man has the greater physical strength and more
proper use of his reasoning faculties, woman undoubtedly
has the greater sensitiveness and the more generous heart.
However, in the penalty pronounced upon the Woman,
the fact is clearly set forth that, in the marriage relation-
ship, man is the divinely recognized head. The woman
was created for the man, not the man for the woman.
She supplies a place in the creation, by nature and impulse,
that man cannot possibly fill, a place that would be a blank
without her. Hence, any attempt to place the two in com-
petition with each other, in any field of human activity, is
a violation of the Divine intention. Woman’s true sphere
of action is the home; and in discharging her obligations
to husband and children she often exerts greater influence
than the man: hence the well-known Scripture phrase,
“Man that is born of woman” (Job 14:1, Matt. 11:ll).
208
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
7, It jioiwts wji the fact that the esseiftial Priiicijle of
sin is selfishness, The choice made by Adam and Eve was
the choice of their owif way of doing fhiigs. above God’s
way of doiiig things, It was t h e choice of earthiness over
godliness, of worldly wisdom over heavenly wisdom, of
pride over humility, o f rebelliousness over obedience to
authority. This is t h e choice which we must all make
sooner or later (Matt. 2j:31-46, Phil, 2:?-11, Rev, 2 0 : l l -
1 5 ) . Matt, 6:24--“Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
It is doubtful t h a t a sin is ever committed that is not the
choice o f self above God.
The Beneficeiit Curse
Gen. 3:17--“Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” Note
t h e following matters embodied in this declaration:
1. The sigiiificaiice of what is called iiz Scripture “the
curse.” (1) In the language of everyday life, a curse
(cursing, swearing) is an invocation, by one person, of
Divine wrath and judgment on some other person or thing
(Matt, ?:34, Luke 6:28, Rom. 12:14, Jas. 3:9-10). This,
of course, is a human vanity, because no man has either
the power or the right to try to manipulate God for his
own selfish ends (Exo. 20:7, Deut. 5:11, Matt. ?:34, Jas.
5: 1 2 ) . This vanity is similar to that of the deluded cult-
ists who would handle poisonous snakes to prove t h a t God
will protect them by miracle: as a matter of fact they are
trying “to put God on the spotYy’whereas God alone
chooses when and where H e shall do “mighty works and
wonders and sigiis” (Acts 2 :22) , Vindication belongs to
God oiily (Deut. 32:35, Rom. 12:19), and only as H e
wills it to be accomplished, (Deut. 6:13, 10:20, and
similar texts, have reference t o the juridical oath, violation
of which is perjury, a crime severely punished throughout
the entire ancient world.) ( 2 ) In the Bible, however, the
term (“the curse”) is used frequently in a special sense,
namely, as indicating t h e Divine penal decree covering all
209
 GENESIS
mankind as a consequence of the universality of sin (Rom.
2:23, Gal. 3:lO-14, Rev, 2 2 : 3 ) . This is the import of the
term as it appears in Gen. 3:17. Translated into the con-
crete, it is the cwse of sin that is implicit in this use of the
word. Sin is the universal curse which man has brought
on himself; it is sin that is, and has always been, the cause
of all his troubles. I John 3:4--“Sin is lawlessness.”
2. The significance of the Divine anathema with respect
t o “the grmmd.” It is indeed significant that it is the
ground, not man, which is under the curse. The Divine
judgment-the various aspects of the penalty pronounced
on mankind-was to come upon him from the ground.
( 1 ) With respect to toil, the ground contributes to the
execution of this phase of the penalty by the niggardliness
of the soil and the frequent fruitlessness of human labor.
This aspect of the curse is actualized too in what is pop-
ularly known as ‘*the struggle for existence,” in the dog-
eat-dog competition which the race apparently must suffer
to attain any satisfactory measure of temporal security.
( 2 ) Weeds and thorns and thistles also are produced by,
and come upon man from, the ground. (3) The human
body, moreover, is ultimately consigned to the ground, that
is, to the physical elements of which it is composed: the
corporeal part of man is dust and ashes, whether ultimately
suffering interment or cremation (Eccl. 3:20, 12:7; Psa.
103:14, 146:4). Physical death is a Divine appointment
(Heb. 9:27) and one which all men keep sooner or later.
Thus it becomes obvious that Mother Earth plays a prom-
inent role in the execution of the penalty pronounced on
humankind.
3 The express Divine declaration that this was to be a
beneficent curse. “Cursed is the ground for they sake.”
Never forget this phrase, “for thy sake.” What does this
teach us? It teaches us that every drop of perspiration
that trickles down the toiler’s face, that every weed and
thorn and thistle which mars the beauty of woodland and
210
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
field and garden, t h a t every solemn procession which wends
its way to the city of marble, t h a t every funeral dirge,
every parting sob a t the graveside, every clod of dirt t h a t
is heaped on the coffin-that all this is for the purpose of
teaching man that he is lost and in danger of perishing
forever, and indeed will perish in Hell unless he accepts and
commits himself to the Remedy which God, out of the
depths of His ineffable grace, has provided for his re-
demption. Every decree, every ordiizaiice of G o d , is for
iizaii,’s good. And His positive ordinances are no exception.
For example, both Christian baptism and the Lord’s Supper
are for our own good as Christians and especially for the
good of others, in consequence of our witnessing visibly, by
obedience to these ordinances. to the facts of the Gospel,
t h a t Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried and
that He was raised up the third day according to the Scrip-
tures ( 1 Cor. 15 :1-4) , Incidentally, any act which would
substitute anything else than a burial in water and raising
up therefrom for Scriptural baptism (Rom. 6:3-11, Col.
2: 1 2 ) , obviously vitiates the witnessing aspect of the or-
dinance and so thwarts the purpose of God in ordaining it.
The fact ifeeds to be emphasized that our world (n5an-
kiizd) is still under this curse, and because sin is universal,
the curse of sin is universal. John 3:17--“God sent not
the Son into the world to judge the world; but t h a t the
world should be saved through him.” Why did not God’
send the Son to judge the world? Because the world
(mankind) is under Divine judgment, and has been since
man allowed sin to come into it. It was in view of man’s
danger of perishing, of being lost forever, that God sent
the Son that the world might be saved tJwough Him. God
gave His Son, the Son willingly gave His life, and the
Spirit has given us the knowledge of the Way, the Way
that leads to redemption in spirit and soul and body (1
Thess. J : 2 3 ) . Without Christ, man would be without
an Atonement (Covering) for sin, lost forever, condemned
211
 GENESIS
to the same f a t e as the angels who “kept not their own
principality, b u t left their proper habitation” (Jude 6 ) .
The preacher’s most difficult task today is that of con-
vincing and convicting men of the fact of sin-sin gen-
erally, and sin in their own lives. And yet, to deny the
fact of sin is t o deny the existence of moral law; and this,
in turn, is t o deny the existence of the Eternal Lawgiver,
the Author of the moral law. To deny sin, therefore, is
to be, for all practical purposes, an atheist: it is to believe,
and to live, as if there were no God, no right and wrong,
no judgment, no life to come. Millions are walking in
this broad way that leads to a godless eternity (Matt.
7:13-14). Note well that for God’s saints there will be
no curse in the Home over there (Rev, 2 2 : 3 ) .
:b :E b: b: :I.

FROM INNOCENCE TO HOLINESS

T H E FALL THE RECOVERY
Adam The Person Tempted Christ
Eden The Place “Wilderness”
Innocence The State Ho1iness
Satan The Tempter Satan
To Disobedience The Appeal To Disobedience
Death The Result Life
Sin the Conqueror Sin Conquered
(Gen. 3 : l - 8 ) (Matt. 4:l-11)
In Eden where everything pulsated with life, God spoke
of death (Gen. 2:17, 3 : 3 - 4 ) , In the world a t large, where
everything around us speaks of death, God, through His
Son, speaks of life, (John 1:4, 5:40, 6:35, 10:10, 11:25-
26, 14:6, 20:31; cf. Rom. 8:6; 2 Cor. 2:16, 5:4; 2 Tim.
1:lO; Heb. 7:16; 1 John 5 : l 2 ; Rev. 2:7, 2:1O, 3:5, 22:2,
2 2 : 1 4 ) . Is it not most significant that Jesus had so little
to say about death, and so very much to say about life?
u :I. * >F :I.

212
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TIlIRTEEN
1, Explain how the Genesis account of the Fall exempli-
fies the “psychology of temptation,”
2, Explain what is meant by physical evil as distinct
from moral evil,
3, Define the three categories of evil as given by Leibniz,
4. Explain: “Order is nature’s first law.yy
5 . Why do we say that the problem of the origin of
evil caiinot be resolved by human speculation?
6 , To what source, then, must we look for the under-
standing of this problem?
7, Explain how the caption, “The Inquest,” is applicable
to this chapter,
8. Explain what is meant by the ccuiiiversa~ityy’ of the
content of t h e first three chapters of Genesis,
9 . Explain the anthropomorphic character of this ac-
count and the probable reason for it.
lo. What was the general reaction of Adam and Eve to
the Divine Inquest?
11. List the steps in the uncovering of their guilt.
12. What facts in this section reveal their rebelliousness?
13. Explain what is meant by the “fatherly motif” in
relation to this account,
14. Explain what is meant by krojectioiz as a “defense
mechanism.”
1Y. Show how the whole human race is guilty of this
device of “passing the buck.”
16. What factors do men today blame for their own
neglect and disobedience?
17. Explain the statement that “the forbidden fruit
turned sour” for Adam and Eve.
18. Explain the penalty pronounced on the serpentkind.
213
 GENESIS
19. Explain the mysterious oracle concerning the Seed of
a woman.
20. Why do we say that this was the first intimation of
redemption?
21. In whom was the oracle fulfilled?
22. According to this oracle, what is to be Satan’s last
end?
23. Explain what is meant by catharsis and how it is
related t o the unburdening of guilt.
24. Why do we say that the controversy about the words
almah and parthewos is largely ‘‘academic’’ in rela-
tion to the accounts of the Virgin Birth given us by
Matthew and Luke?
25. Show how the Bible is the most realistic of all books.
26. Show how it is, in a special sense, the Book of Life.
27. Show how it is, a t the same time, unfailingly opti-
mistic.
28. How is this optimism implicit in the oracle of Gen.
3:15?
29. Explain the progressive unfolding of the Messianic
anticipation.
30. What was the penalty pronounced on womankind?
31. Explain the aspect of this pentalty having reference
t o wifely pain and sorrow.
32. Explain the aspect of this penalty that has reference
to woman’s subordination to man in the conjugal
relationship.
.33. What are the reasons for this subordination?
31. Explain the apostolic teaching with respect to wom-
an’s role in Christian faith and practice.
35, What was the threefold penalty pronounced on man-
kind?
36. How is the cursing of the ground related to the
execution of this penalty?
214
~
~

THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH

3 7. What are the blessings of holiest labor?
3 8, In what sense, then, is toil a phase of the penalty?
39. What is the significance of the deterioration of nature
as indicated by the “thorns and thistles” it produces?
40, What is man’s last and most terrible enemy, and why
is it so?
41 What are the three terms by which death is described
I

in Scripture?
42 What are the two kinds of death indicated in the
penalty for sin?
43 What does the phrase “dust of the ground” suggest
1

in modern scientific language?

44, What is meant by the term psychosomatic u n i t y as
the definition of human nature?
45. Are we justified in supposing that man was created
immortal?
46. What is the specific meaning of the term immortality
as it is used in the Bible?
47. Distinguish between immortality and survival.
48. What was the probable correlation between the mor-
tality of Adam and the fruit of the Tree of Life?
How is this often explained literally? How may it
be explained symbolically?
49. In what other texts do we find the Tree of Life
mentioned in Scripture?
50, Is there any suggestion in the narrative of the Fall
that man and woman would have lived forever had
they not sinned?
71. What are some of the examples of man’s insistence
on playing God?
52. What is physical death?
53. Why do we say that it is not the red death?
54, In what sense is physical death but the ccshadow’’of
real death ( h a . 23) ?
21J
 GENESIS
$ 5 . In what sense did Adam and Eve suffer spiritual
death?
$6. In what sense is spiritual death the root of all evils?
$7. What, according to the Bible, is the second death?
$ 8 . Why, according to Scripture, is death in the world
and why is it universal?
f 9 . Explain Satan’s progeny as listed in the Epistle of
James.
60. What were the elements that characterized the im-
mediacy of the execution of the penalty pronounced
on man?
61. Why were the Man and the Woman expelled from
Eden?
62. What probably did the Cherubim signify?
63. What evidently was signified by the Flaming Sword?
64. What is a prolepsis and why is verse 23 considered
an example of it?
6J. What is the apparent significance of the coat of
skins?
66. Explain the fallacy implicit in the phrase, “the lost
chance of immortality.”
67. What must be regarded as the main sources of this
fallacy ?
68. Show how failure to take into account the teaching
of the Bible as a whole contributes in a special sense
t o this fallacy.
69. State the three views of the ultimate destiny of the
body.
70. Explain the Biblical doctrine of the redemption of
the body.
71. Show how the Atonement is related to the Christian
doctrine of immortality.
72. Explain the fallacy in the view that immortality can
threaten the sovereignty of God.
216
THE BEGINNING OF PHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
73, Explain how the ultimate destiny of the bodies of the
saints is an integral part of God’s Eternal Purpose.
74, Show how the Biblical doctrine of the destiny of the
bodies of the saved proves that t h e Genesis account of
the Fall could not have been a borrowing from
Babylonian mythology.
75, Review the symbolism of the various elements of the
Genesis narrative of the Fall.
76. Do you agree t h a t conscience is born in the passing
from innocence t o responsibility? Explain your
answes.
77. How does the birth of conscience presuppose a Fall
morally?
78. Explain how the Genesis account of the Fall is a
picture of what happens in the life of every human
being.
79. Distinguish between innocence and holiness.
80. To what extent is it true that man was created
perfect?
81. Why do we insist that he was not created I?zorally
perfect, that is, holy?
82. Explain Campbell’s view of the three states of man.
8 3 . In what sense was t h e Fall a fall “downward”?
84. In what sense can it be considered a fall “upward’’?
8 ~ On . what ground do we conclude that Creation and
Redemption are closely related in God’s Remedial
System?
86. What is meant by the statement that man is “pre-
destined to be free”?
87. Is man depraved? Is he totally depraved?
88. What intelligent beings are said in Scripture to be
totally depraved? What are the Scripture texts that
assert this truth?
217
 GENESIS
89. How does depravity differ from immaturity, and
from irrationality?
90. How is freedom defined in this text?
91. To what extent is personal freedom more or less
limited?
92. Can freedom be rightly defined as “motiveless action”?
Explain.
93. How is freedom defined negatively?
94. Explain what is meant by self -determination.
95, Of what type of being only is freedom an essential
property?
9 6. Define voluntarism and necessitarianism.
97. What are the two general kinds of necessitarianism?
98. What is meant by the statement that every person
is unique?
99. Explain the three kinds of determinism.
100. Point out the fallacies in Skinner’s theory of deter-
minism.
101. What attitude has common sense always taken toward
these deterministic theories?
102. What does immediate personal experience testify re-
garding the person’s power of choice?
103. W h y cannot life and personality be reduced to mech-
anistic theories?
104. Explain: I n every human act three factors are in-
volved, namely, heredity, environment, and the per-
sonal reaction.
105. Why does the stronger motive always win?
106. What was Kant’s theory of freedom?
107. Explain why freedom of choice is necessary to a
human act.
108. Explain why freedom of choice is necessary to mor-
ality, to democracy, and even to science as free
inquiry.
218
THE BEGINNING OF PIHYSICAL EVIL ON EARTH
109, What is voluntariness?
110, Why, then do we conclude t h a t Adam and Eve could
have chosen otherwise than they did chouse?
111, How answer t h e question: W h y did God create man
capable of falling?
112, How answer the question: W h y did not God interfere
and keep man from falling into sin?
113, How answer the questioii: How could so terrible a
penalty justly have been connected with disobedience
to such an apparently trivial command?
114. How answer the objection: Does not the fall of
man prove t h a t the Creation was a failure?
115. List the important lessons to be gotten from the
Narrative of the Fall.
116. Why do we affirm t h a t this Narrative is one of the
greatest “human interest” stories in world literature?
117. On what grounds do we hold that the curse pro-
nounced on the ground, and the accompanying
penalty on humankind, is a beneficent curse?
118. Does the Scripture teach that the world (mankind)
is under Divine judgment?
119. What according to Scripture was God’s purpose in
sending His Son into t h e world?
120. When and under what circumstances, according to
Scripture teaching, will this curse and the accom-
panying penalty be removed?

219
 PART FOURTEEN:
THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
Every branch of human knowledge has what is called its
“universe of discourse,” in everyday (unflattering, but
realistic) language, its “gobbledygook.” This term, coined
by the late Congressman Maury Maverick of Texas after
the gobbling of turkeys, is defined in standard dictionaries
as “inflated, involved, and obscure verbiage characteristic
of the pronouncements of officialdom.”
Of all the areas of human study, speculative (“system-
atic”) theology, it seems, has turned out to be the most
prolific of a jargon that appears to reach no bounds. And
in the entire gamut of Biblical teaching there is perhaps
no area in which this jargon has grown up in such profu-
sion as in connection with the Biblical Narrative of the
Fall. I n this area especially, a set of closely inter-related
dogmas has been developed and embodied in elaborate
creeds and confessions (statements) of faith, formulated
and imposed on certain denominations of Christendom
solely by bwmm authority. These are known as the
dogmas of “original sin,” “total depravity,” “uncondi-
tional election and reprobation,” “miraculous conversion,”
and “final perseveran~e.~~ These are all of one piece: to-
gether they constitute the theological mosaic which goes
under the name of Calvinism: however, as a matter of
fact, they had their sources in the “theo1ogy” of Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo, who died A.D. 430 in North Africa.
( I t should be explained here that a doctrine is a teaching;
that a dogma is a doctrine to be accepted on the ground
that it has been proclaimed by recognized ecclesiastical
authority.) It should be noted that not one of the terms
and phrases listed above is to be found in the Bible. It
cannot be emphasized too much that they are all the vin-
tage of human authority and presumption.
220
 TIlE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
1, “Oyiginal Siiz.”
This dogma is the basis of the whole Calvinistic system,
B u t what is meant by “original sin”? The dogma is
popularly, but simply and factually stated, in t h e well-
lrnowii couplet: ‘Til Adam’s fall, we sinned all,” As
clearly stated by Calvin himself (Iit.stitu,tes, 11, ii, Y) :
“Therefore all of us who have descended from impure
seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin. In fact
before we saw the light of this life we were soiled and
spotted in God’s sight.” Or, as set forth in The Cowfes-
sioiz of Fnitb of the Presbyterian Church (Ch. VI, Sections
I-IV) : “I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety
and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden
fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his
wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed it to
his own glory. 11. By this sin they fell from their original
righteousness and communion with God, and so became
dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and
parts of soul and body. 111. They being the root of all
mankind, t h e guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same
death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their
posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly
indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans-
gressions. V. This corruption of nature, during this life,
doth remain in those that are regenerated: and although
it be tlirough Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both
itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly
sin. VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a trans-
gression of the righteous law of God, and contrary there-
unto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,
whereby he is bound over t o t h e wrath of God, and curse
of the law, and so made subject t o death, with all miseries
spiritual, temporal and eternal.” (Note especially t h e
phrase, “both original and actual”) .
22 1
 GENESIS
1 John 3:4 (A.V.), “Sin is transgression of the law”).
(A.S.V.), “Sin is lawlessness.” Now the subject of sin
involves two facts of primary importance, namely, guilt
and conseqzLences; and carelessness in distinguishing be-
tween these t w o facts has produced the ambiguity which
has grown up in the use of the term. For example, tradi-
tional Pctheology’yhas insisted on perpetuating the notion
that sin is of two kinds, what is called cco’riginalyy
(uni-
versal) sin, and what is called “actual” (personal or
individual) sin. However, the crux of the problem in-
volved here is this: Do these two facts of sin, guilt and
consequences, characterize both “original” and “actualyy
sin? That actual personal sin involves both guilt and
consequences is hardly open to question, from the Biblical
point of view. But does so-called “original sin” involve
both guilt and consequences? Or, is there such a thing as
original guilt? Or, stated in plainer terms, Is any pers0.n
ever born into this world guilty o f , and hence account-
able for, the sin of any of his forbears, Adam included?
That every person does suffer the consequences of the sins
of the ftzthers is a fact of hztmmz experience. But does
anyone inherit the guilt of the sins of the fathers? Our
answer to this question is an unequivocal, No! Such a
doctrine is not found in Scripture.
Consider, first, Exo. 2O:J-6, “I Jehovah thy God am a
jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation
of them that hate me, and showing lovingkindness unto
thousands of them that love me and keep my command-
ments.” Obviously, we have here an explicit affirmation
of the chsequences of sin: this has rightly been called
the first statement of the law of heredity t o be found in
our literature. As the late Dorothy L. Sayers has written
(MM, 19-30): “Much confusion is caused in human
affairs by the use of the same word ‘law’ to describe two
very different things: an arbitrary code of behavior based
222
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
on a consensus of huinan opinion, and a statement of
unalterable fact about the nature of the universe, The
confusion is a t its worst wheii we come to talk about the
‘moral law’. , .. There is a universal moral law, as dis-
tinct from a moral codk, which consists of certain state-
ments of fact about the nature of mail, and by behaving
in conformity with which, man enjoys his true freedom.
The more closely the moral code agrees with the natural
law, the more it makes for freedom in human behavior;
the more widely it departs from the natural law, the
more it tends to enslave mankind and to produce the
catastrophes called ‘judgments of God.’ The universal
moral l a w (or natural law of humanity) is discoverable,
like any other law of nature, by experience. It cannot
be promulgated, it can only be ascertained, because it is
a question not of opinion but of fact. When it has been
ascertained, a moral code can be drawn u p to direct
human behavior and prevent men, as far as possible, from
doing violence to their own nature. ... There is a
difference between saying: ‘If you hold your finger in the
fire you will get burned,’ and saying, ‘if you whistle a t
your work I shall beat you, because the noise gets on m y
nerves.’ The God of the Christians is too often looked
upon as an old gentleman of irritable nerves who beats
people for whistling. This is the result of a confusion
between arbitrary ‘law’ and the ‘laws’ which are state-
ments of fact. Breach of the first is ‘punished’ by edict;
but breach of the second, by judgment.” Quoting then
the passage from Exodus cited above, this author concludes:
“Here is a statement of fact, observed by the Jews and
noted as such. From its phrasing it might appear an
arbitrary expression of personal feeling. But today, we
understand more about the mechanism of the universe,
and are able to reinterpret the pronouncement by the
‘laws’ of heredity and environment. Defy the command-
ments of the natural law, and the race will perish in a few
223
 GENESIS
generations; co-operate with them, and the race will
flourish for ages to come. That is the fact; whether we
like it or not, the universe is made that way. This com-
mandment is interesting because it specifically puts for-
ward the moral law as the basis of the moral code; because
God has made the world like this and will not alter it,
therefore you must not worship your own fantasies, but
pay allegiance to the truth.” So much for Scripture teach-
ing concerning the consequences of sin; let us keep in
mind, however, that consequences do not constitzbte guilt.
Hence we find the law of guilt clearly stated elsewhere
in Scripture, in Ezek. 18:19-20, as follows: “Yet say ye,
Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?
When the son hath doae that which is lawful and right,
and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he
shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the
father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the
wicked shall be upon him.” Nothing could be made
more explicit than the fact stated in this passage, namely,
that t h e guilt of sin is a personal matter involving personal
responsibility. A father may go to a gambling den, and,
in a single night, gamble away all his material goods, thus
reducing his wife and children t o poverty. His family
would suffer the cornsequences of his act, but there is no
court in Heaven or on earth that would hold them guilty
of it. This is the very thing that Adam did: He gambled
away his whole being-spirit and soul and body-and re-
duced his posterity to toil, sorrow and death; in a word,
he sold himself and them to sin and the Devil. But, even
t h o u g h ull his descendants are suffering f r o m the conse-
quences of his act, this is no evidence that they are to be
held uccouiztable for what be did. Moreover, it was the
mission of Christ to remove whatever guilt may have
been incurred by the human race, if any a t all, as a result
224
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
of Adain’s transgressioii: to remove this guilt mmcoiiditiow
ally iiisofar as the innocent and the irresyoiisible are coii-
ceriied (Matt. 18:3, 19:14; Luke 18:16-17), but condi-
tionally (upon obedience to the terms of the Gospel
coveiiant) iiisof ar as the responsible are coiicerned (John
20:30-31, Acts 2:38, Rom. 10:9-10, Gal. 3:27).
Certainly it must be admitted t h a t we inherit a weak-
ened constitution, both physical and moral (a will vitiated
by self-assertiveness, as someone has put it) as a conse-
quence of t h e spread of sin and its effects throughout the
human family. This is to say that man is spiritually
corrupted-depraved-to some extent as a result of the
inroads of sin. It seems to be much easier for a person to
drift the downward way than t o climb the upward: t h e
latter requires persistent effort, t h e former requires no
effort a t all. This f a c t was emphasized by our Lord
Himself (Matt. 7:13-14). In a word, the range of man’s
potential for morality or immorality is nothing short of
amazing: he can walk among the stars or wallow in the
gutter, depending basically on his own choices. As Aris-
totle has put it so clearly (Politics I, 2, Jowett translation) :
“, , , man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but,
when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of
all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, aiid he is
equipped a t birth with arms, meant to be used by intelli-
gence aiid virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.
Wherefore, if he have not virtue, lie is the most unholy
and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust
and gluttony.”
Indeed there seems to be a n indefinable relation existing
between s f l i i p i t (or mind) and body, between the interior
aiid exterior powers, in man, as a result of which the
irascible and coiicupiscible desires-and in consequence the
tempations t o sin-are stronger in some persons than in
others. Breiits (GPS, 1 3 2 ) : “There are differences of
meiital power manifested by different persons, growing
22 J
 GENESIS
out of a difference in the physical machinery inherited
from our parents. This we not only admit, but firmly
believe: but these do not affect our position in the least.
An engine may run a vast amount of well made and prop-
erly applied machinery, and thus exhibit great power,
but were we to apply the same engine to heavy, cumber-
some, unwieldy, unbalanced machinery, it could do but
little, though the same man operated it. So a man who
has inherited a fine organization, large and well balanced
brain, of fine material, will exhibit much more mental
power than one who has inherited an imperfect organiza-
tion of coarse material. But inherited weakness, whether
physical or mental, is not sin-no guilt can attach to it-
and therefore the differences in mental power spoken of
cannot prove the doctrine of total depravity; on the con-
trary, if they prove anything concerning it, they contra-
dict it, for these differences cannot be the result of total
depravity, because all who are totally depraved are, in
this respect, exactly alike. There is no comparative degree
in total depravity.” Certainly we all inherit certain
propensities from our parents and ancestors, and in this
sense the spiritual potential in any person may be raised
or lowered. But let it be repeated for the sake of emphasis
t h a t inherited weakness is not guilt. Biblical teaching is
clear that man is a sinner by virtue of his o w n yielding
to the forces od evil. (Cf. Jas. 1 : 1 2 - 1 ~ ) , (Some wag has
punned, with reference to the experience of Adam and
Eve, that “the fault was not with the apple in the tree
but with the pair on the ground.” Of course there is no
mention of an apple in the Biblical story: that happens
t o be a Miltonian touch.)
Some would speak of this “inherited weakness” as
“derived sinfulness.” Others would try t o reduce it to
CC.
immaturity,” as, for example, Overstreet in his book,
T h e Mature Mind. The “depth” psychologists would have
us think of i t as ccirrationalityy’having its source in
226
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
“hidden” or c c uiicoiiscious” motivation. It is interesting
to note t h a t Alexander Campbell (CS, ch. 7 ) affirms the
sinfulness and depravity of all men as a consequence of
Adam’s fall. “The stream of humanityy7 is said to be
ct
contaminated a t its fountain.” “True, indeed it is; our
nature was corrupted by the fall of Adam before it was
traiisniitted to us; and hence that hereditary imbecility to
do good, and t h a t proneness to evil, so universally apparent
in all human beings. Let no inan open his mouth against
the transmission of a moral distemper, until he satisfactorily
explain the fact, t h a t the special characteristic vices of
parents appear in their children as much as the color of
their skin, their hair, or the contour of their faces. A
disease in the moral constitution of man is as clearly
transmissible as any physical taint, if there be any truth
in history, biography, or human observation.” Again:
“Condemned to natural death, and greatly fallen and de-
praved in our whole moral constitution though we certainly
are, in consequence of the sin of Adam, still, because of
the interposition of the second Adam, none are punished
with everlasting destruction from the presence of t h e
Lord but those who actually and voluntarily sin against
a dispensation of mercy under which they are placed: for
this is the ‘condemnation of the world that light has come
into the woi-Id, and men choose durkizess rather than light,
because their deeds are evil.’ ” A contemporary writer
contributes the following pertinent comment (Rushdoony,
in Ckristiaii Ecovoiwics, July 7, 1964) : “Man’s basic and
original sin is ‘to be as God, knowing good and evil.’
‘Knowing’ here has the force of determining, establishing,
so t h a t inan’s essential sin is to attempt to play God and
to legislate creatively and substantively on the nature of
morality in terms of his own godhead.” The fact still
remains, however, t h a t the notion of inherited guilt--
which is our problem here-is not implied in any of these
ternis, phrases, or concepts.
227
 GENESIS
The Bible knows no such thing as inherited guilt. Its
teaching, from beginning to end, is that the person is
guilty before God f o r his o w n personal transgressions only.
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Nature is individual-
istic throughout: we come into the kingdom of nature one
by one, and we go out of it one by one. The same is true
in regeneration: one must be born again, as an individual,
into the kingdom of grace (John 3:1-7). Sin is personal
(individual), and salvation is personal, and final judgment
is personal. The Scriptures know no such thing as either
sin or salvation by proxy or en masse. (Matt. 2:23, 20:13;
Rom. 2:6, 14:12; 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:lO; Eph. 6:8; Col.
3:25; Rev. 2:23, 20:13, 22:12).
Incidentally, as a corollary of the dogma of “original
sin,” that of ‘‘infant damnation” has arisen. It has been
taught and believed, rather extensively, that an infant is
born into this state of sin and guilt inherited from Adam
and must be received into the New Covenant through the
ceremony of patting a few drops of water on its head
or face; that, if the baby should die prior to the adminis-
tration of this “sacramentyy (which is generally misnamed
a ccbaptismy’),it must surely be regarded as lost, whatever
tc
lost” may mean in such a case. (This is undoubtedly
the most meaningless ceremony to which “theology” has
ever given birth. It is “baptismal regeneration” pure and
simple: whatever efficacy there is in the act must be in
the water, because it cannot be in the child’s heart: the
child does not even know what is going on. In Scripture
terms Christian baptism is an immersion-a burial and
resurrection, Rom. 6: 1-1 1, Col. 2: 12-and hence infant
baptism would be infant immersion, as indeed has been
practised by the Greek Orthodox denomination from its
beginning.) Rom. 5:13--“sin is not imputed when there
is no law.” Rom. 4:15--“where there is no law, neither
is there transgression.” Rom. 3 :2O--“through the law
cometh the knowledge of sin,” that is, t o all who are
22 8
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
capable of such knowledge (cf, Rom. 7 : 7 ) , Surely the
babe, and even the young child, has no knowledge of moral
right and wrong; it is governed largely by impulse, and
its respoiises are reflexive; it is incapable of faith; and
therefore it has no need of “baptism for the remission of
original sin,’’ no need of salvation from t h e guilt of sin,
but is by virtue of its innocence (or a t least by virtue of
the Atonement provided once for all a t the end of t h e
ages, aiid provided unconditionally for the innoceiit and
the irresponsible) is prepared for the Spiritual Life of
the Hereafter. (Mark 10:14, Matt. 1 8 : 3 , Luke 18:16,
Rom. J:18-19, I Cor. 15:22-23). The only redemption
which the infant is in need of, is redemption from the
coimqwiices of sin, t h a t is, redemption of the body from
physical dissolution in the putting on of immortality (1
Thess. 5 : 2 3 ) . May we not reasonably suppose that the
little one who dies in infancy will experience the actualiza-
tion of its personality in the celestial environment?
Let us consider, for a moment, some of the Scripture
texts which are usually cited to support the dogma of
“original sin,” etc. ( I ) Psa. 14:1 ff., 5 3 : I f f . , Rom. 3:9-
18, etc. In these passages we have the affirmation of the
moral corruption of mankind in general, a fact which no
sane person would deny. However, there is nothing in
these texts that would indicate iizhevited guilt. On the
contrary, the teachiizg is that m e n have corrupted them-
selves by their OWIZ evil thoughts aiid acts. “They have
all turned aside.” “They have done abominable works.”
Their throats-not Adam’s-are full of cursing and bitter-
ness. Why blame Adam, or indeed his collective progeny,
for this corruption in view of the fact that both the
Psalmist and the Apostle are referring here to t h e persoiial
siiu of humankind? ( 2 ) PSa. 5 8:3. Again the matter
under consideration here is personal sin. The wicked are
not said to be born astray, but to go &ray. They them-
selves work wickedness: their poison is like the poison of
229
 GENESIS
a serpent. Their poison is not inherited from Adam: it
is their own poisoln. ( 3 ) Isa. (i3 :6. Note that we have
all gone astray, not have been born astray. (4) E p h 2 : l .
Note well: through your trespasses and sins, not through
Adam’s sin nor the sins of your parents. ( 7 ) Epk. 2:3.
Those persons who had become Christians a t Ephesus had
once lived-prior to their conversion--(‘in the lusts of the
flesh,” that is, their o w n flesh, and hence were by nature
“children of wrath” while in that state of alienation from
God (cf. John 3:16-18). Again, the reference is to personal
sins, not fo uny sz~chthing us inherited guilt. (6) Col.
l ; 2 l , 2;13. Note: alienated and enemies in your evil
works, and dead through y o u r trespasses, etc., that is, prior
to their conversion to Christ. (7) Job. 14:4--“Who can
bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.” This is
explained by the preceding verse: “Dont thou open thine
eyes on such a one, And bringest me into judgment with
thee?” That is, when the period of probation shall have
come to an end., the final decree will be (Rev. 2 2 : l l ) :
“He that is filthy, let him be made filthy still. , . and .
he that is holy, let him be made holy still.” That is, then
indeed it will be too late: personal destiny having been
determined by one’s deeds while in the flesh, it will no
longer be possible to bring a clean thing out of an un-
clean. Luke 16:26-the “gulf” will have been fixed for
ever. ( 8 ) Psd. (il:~--“Behdd, I was brought forth in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” It is
asserted by some commentators that “the fact of congeni-
tal depravity is stated here” and in such similar passages
as Job 14:4, Psa. 58:3, etc. “ C o n g e d a l depravity,” h o w -
ever, is not inherited guilt. Whatever this obscure passage
may mean, it certainly does not signify the imputation of
the mother’s sin (guilt) to the child. Suppose a woman
were to say, ‘‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,” would
that mean that the wife is guilty of her husband’s drunken-
ness? Or, suppose a child were to say, “In anger my
230
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
father whipped me,” would t h a t inean that the child is
guilty of the father’s anger? Not much indication here of
iiaherited guilt, is there? ( 9 ) 2 T i m 3:13-1f men are
born totally depraved, how could they “wax worse and
worse”? (10) Roiiz. 3:23--“all have sinned, and fall short
of the glory of God.” Note t h a t they have sinwed: it is
not said that they have beeia boriz Jiz siv. If the original
corruption of our human character is the cause of all
actual transgressions, how came Adam himself to sin?
(11) Rom. 14:1-12, Matt. 16:27, 2 Cor. J:lO, Rev.
20:13, etc. These and many other Scriptures of like im-
port clearly teach that each person will be held account-
able in the Judgment for his own sins, not for the sin of
Adam, nor for the sins of his ancestors. “The soul that
.
sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek. 1 8 :20)
The authors of The Jevusalem Bible make a significant
admission (19, note “d”) , concerning the divine penalties
imposed, as related in the third chapter of Genesis, as
follows: “These penalties are hereditary; the doctrine of
hereditary guilt is not clearly stated until St. Paul draws
his comparison between the solidarity of all in Christ the
Savior, and the solidarity of all i n the sinner, Adam, Rm.
1.” But-why haul the notion of iiiheirited guilt into the
content of the fifth chapter of Romans? Certainly
Adam’s guilt was his owii guilt, just as my guilt is 71zy OWIZ
guilt, just as every man’s guilt is his ow11 guilt. There
is no reason for assuming from the Apostle’s teaching here
t h a t anything more is implied than the fact that Adam’s
posterity all suffer the coirsequeiices of his rebellion against
God. We have already noted t h a t t h e penalties pronounced
upon the serpent, the Woman, and the Man, respectively,
were pronounced upon serpentkind, womankind, and man-
kind, Certainly the Apostle has in mind here primarily
the death and resurrection of the body. His teaching is
explicit, however, that whatever niankind lost through the
disobedience of the First Adam has been regained fully by
23 1
 GENESIS
virtue of the obedience of the Second Adam. regained
unconditionally, let me repeat, insofar as the innocent
and the irresponsible are concerned, but regained condi-
tionally (on the obedience of faith) insofar as the morally
responsible are concerned. Through the Atonement pro-
vided by the Only Begotten, for the burden of the sin of
mankind (John 1:29, 1 Pet. 2:21-25), through this “one
act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to
justification of life” (Rom. 5 : l S ) . But the Gift must
be personally accepted and appropriated in order to be
enjoyed (John 3:16-17, J:40; Heb. 5:9; 1 John 5:10-12).
There is not the slightest intimation in this fifth chapter of
Romans of any such notion as that of inherited guilt. It
is quite reasonable to hold that the Kingdom of Christ
(Reign of Messiah, literally) is more inclusive than the
Church of Christ, in the fact that the former takes in
the innocent and irresponsible, and the elect of prior
Dispensations, all of whom, in the very nature of the
case, cannot belong to the Church. (Cf. again Matt.
19:13-14, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17, etc.).
Consider also, in this connection, the words of the
Apostle in 1 Cor. 15:20-23. Here the reference is again
primarily t o the destiny of the corporeal part of the human
being, which is the subject under consideration throughout
this entire chapter. Here we are told that just as physical
death is by Divine appointment universal (cf. Heb. 9 : 2 7 ) ,
so, again by Divine appointment, there will be a universal
resurrection and a universal Judgment, the proof of which
is made explicit in the bodily resurrection of Christ. (Cf.
Rom. 1:4, 8:18-25, 10:9-10, 14:lO; Acts 17:30-31; John
5:28-29; Matt. 12:39-42, 25:31-46; 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6 ;
1 Cor. 1 5 : 3 5 - 5 6 ; 2 Cor. 5:l-10; Rev. 2O:ll-15, etc.).
W e repeat, f o r emphasis: I n t h e very nature of the case,
guilt simply cuimot be imputed to a n y person-in m y
court, Divine or humatz-for the sin (or crime) of another
persola. I m p u t e d or inherited guilt is ntterly contrary, not
232
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
od31 to Scriptim teaching, but io hima?? experience as
well. I t caii haifdly be doiibted that the hiiiwaii will is
vitiated iii uaryiiig degsees by self-assertiueizess; howeuey,
it is 0~131wheii it is personally exercised in disobedieme t o
God that giiilt is iiiciimvd. “The soul that sinneth, it
shall die.”
2. “Total Depravity.”
As the Creed quoted above has it: As a result of the
Fall, “our first parents” became “dead in sin, wholly defiled
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body,” Again:
“From this original corruption whereby we [all their
posterity] are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made oppo-
site to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed
all actual transgressions.” (Note here the words “wholly”
and “utterly”-these admit no qualifications. They mean
what they say, or they mean nothing a t all. Language
could not be plainer,) In the Institutes, the doctrine is
affirmed just as positively by Calvin himself. The noblest
gifts bestowed upon man a t his creation were utterly
vitiated by the Fall. Such natural powers as reason and
will have been so corrupted that no man is capable of
understanding anything aright or willing anything that
is good. As a result of his depraved nature, the unre-
generated person is wholly unable to bring forth any good
spiritual fruit. This corrupt will “cannot strive after the
right” (11, ii, 12:271), “cannot move toward good, much
less apply itself thereto” (11, iii, 2, J ; 292, 294). “All that
proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin” (11, i, 9 : 2 J 3 ) .
All alleged “good works” t h a t may have been manifested
by human nature simply “deceive us with their vain show”
(11, iii, 4; 294), Though natural endowments, they must,
nevertheless, arise from unworthy motives, and conse-
quently have no value in acquiring righteousness (justifi-
cation).
Now we have already conceded that human character
is depraved: it is so iiiach easier for a man to drift down-
233
 GENESIS
ward than to struggle upward. It takes a great measure
of moral discernment for a person really to put first
things first (Matt. 6:33). Such terms as ecimmaturity,yy
eeirrationality,y’“missing the mark,” etc., are too innoc-
uous, too weak, to describe man’s moral state accurately.
H e is d e p r m e d , to be s w e , but be is not totally depmued.
Were he totally depraved, he would be in the same moral
state as that of the Devil and his angels; these original
rebels, we are told, are “committed to pits of darkness, to
be reserved unto judgment” ( 2 Pet. 2:4), “kept in ever-
lasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day” (Jude 6 ) . What kind of bonds? Bonds of
total moral and spiritual darkness, bonds of total deprav-
ity. These bonds, moreover, are “everlasting”: for Satan
and his rebel host there is no hope: their moral state is
such that they are utterly incapable of faith, repentance,
hope, love, or anything good.
There is no support in Biblical teaching for this dogma
of human total depravity. The tenor of Scripture teach-
ing is entirely t o the contrary. (Review here the Scrip-
tures quoted above in refutation of the dogma of “original
sin.”) The Apostle writes, 2 Tim. 3: 13--“But evil men
and impostors shall wax worse and worse,” etc. If men
are totally depraved, how could they possibly w a x worse
and worse? As a matter of fact, Jesus Himself completely
negates this dogma in His Parable of the Sower (which is,
in fact, a Parable of the Soils); cf. Luke 8:4-15. Here
H e describes the various kinds of soil into which the good
seed of the Kingdom-the Word of God-falls: some, H e
tells us, falls by the wayside only to be trodden under foot
or devoured by the birds of the heavens; some falls on
rocky ground where it cannot obtain sufficient moisture
to put down roots, and hence withers away; and some falls
among thorns which grow along with it and choke it to
death, But-thanks be to God-some falls on good
ground, and brings forth fruit a hundredfold; and the
234
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
good ground, H e tells US expressly, is UIZ hotzest and good
beart (e.g, Acts 8:27-38, 1O:l-8, 10:24-33, etc.) But,
according to the Creed, 110 ?fiaiF has an honest and good
heart; on the contrary, all inen are wholly defiled in all
the faculties and parts of mind and body, and hence
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil. It becomes obvious that
the creed-makers should revise their theories and bring
them into line with the teaching of Christ.
It should be noted here t h a t there can be no degrees in
total depravity; it must be total depravity-or nothing.
This is definitely an either-or proposition. If the Creed
is true, then all men are equully depraved because they are
totally depraved. But neither Scripture, nor logic, nor
human experience supports such a position. Total deprav-
ity, we repeat, is characteristic only of the Devil and his
angels: in every son of man there is “a little spark of
celestial fire called conscience,” unless he himself stifles i t
and so commits spiritual suicide.
3 . CCMirucdom Conveifsion.”
But it will be argued by some t h a t these honest and good
hearts of which Jesus speaks, necessarily have been made
so, have been specifically prepared for the reception of
the spiritual seed, by a special operation of Divine grace.
Hence, the dogmas of “original sin” and ‘‘total depravity”
are necessarily complemented in Calvinistic theology by
t h a t of “miraculous conversion,” a third integral part of
the system. That is to say, man is as dead spiritually as
Lazarus was physically, and as a special miracle was neces-
sary to raise Lazarus from the dead, so a special miracle
must be wrought in the human heart by the Holy Spirit,
to incline it to, and prepare it for, the reception of the
Gospel message. Lacking this special extraordinary ‘‘work
of grace,” human nature vitiated by the Fall will continue
to be indisposed, disabled, and iiiade opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil. Moreover, evidence of
23 Y
 GENESIS
this special manifestation of the Spirit will become known
to the sinner in the form of a mystical experience: an
overwhelming ecstasy, a sign in the heavens, the appearance
of an angel, the singing of a choir invisible, or something
of the kind. The utmost that the poor sinner can do,
under any and all circumstances, to invoke this Divine
interposition (“call”), is to pray for it; failing to receive
it would mean simply that he is doomed to unconditional
reprobation, without hope either in this world or in the
world to come. As Minister Jack Cottrell states the case
so clearly (Christian Standard, January 21, 1967) : “What
does this aspect of total inability mean? It means that
man cannot will to turn to, God in faith and repentance
until the Holy Spirit works in a special way within him,
in a way similar to what we would call ‘being born again.’
Of course, we all agree that no one can believe until the
word of the gospel touches his heart (Romans 10:17).
But for Calvin it is much more serious than this. For him,
no matter how much external preaching and persuasion
are present, all men are blind and deaf to it and no one
surrenders to God unless God himself singles him out and
bends his heart in a new direction (11, iii, 6: 297f.). Faith
is the special gift of God given only to those whom God
.”
himself chooses (111, i, 4; 54lf., 111, ii, 35:583) (Eph.
2 : s is usually cited as a proof text for this view. But
what is it in this passage that is said to be the “gift of
God”? Not faith, of course, except possibly, indirectly,
in the sense that faith comes only from some form of
contact with the Word which God has given us (Rom.
10: 17). It seems obvious, however, that it is the salvation
about which the Apostle is writing here that is said to be,
and is, God’s free gift (John 3:16, Rom. 3:4) to those
who meet the terms of admission into the New Covenant,
the Covenant of Faith: (Rom. T : l , Heb. 8:10-12). These
considerations lead us directly to the next “pillary’ of
Calvin’s theology-
236
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
4, “Uncoiiditioual Electioii aud Rejwobation.”
Again, Cottrell states the case so clearly t h a t no one
could improve on his presentation: “Herein lies the iieces-
sity for the predestination of certain individuals to salvation
apart from any consideration of their response, All men
alike are unable to turn to God, regardless of external
circumstaiices, So if aiiyoiie a t all is to be saved, God
himself must give t h a t one the ability to respond to His
call, Who decides which ones are to be given this ability?
God alone, froin all eternity, aiid on tlie basis of reasons
known oiily to himself. (This is t h e Calvinistic predestina-
tion with which most people are familiar.) Thus at
appropriate times the Holy Spirit opens the hearts o f these
chosen ones, and they are then able to turn to God. This
does not mean t h a t God merely brings His elect ones to
the point where they are free t o either accept or reject
His offer of salvation. Just as God’s choice is sovereign, so
is His call irresistible. Those who receive the call invari-
ably come; those who do not receive it are totally unable
to come or even to want t o do so (11, iii, 10: 303f.) . 7 7 All
this, moreover, is said expressly in the Creed to have been
purposed by God-directly or indirectly--“to his own
glory.”
We shall consider subsequently some of the Scripture
passages that are usually cited t o support this dogma of
unconditioiial election and reprobation. Suffice i t to say
here, however, that the dogma is certainly derogatory of
God. It is difficult to see how God could arbitrarily elect
some persons to salvation aiid others to reprobatioii unless
H e is a respecter of persons, and this tlie Scripture is posi-
tive in affirming that He is n o t (Deut. 10:17, 2 Chron.
19:7, Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11, Gal. 2:6, Eph. 6 : 9 , Col.
3 :25, 1 Pet. 1: 17). Moreover, Biblical teaching uniformly
asserts, from beginning to end, t h a t God does not coerce
the human will or exert pressure t o modify-much less t o
overpower-inan’s freedom of choice.
237
 GENESIS
Bible teaching on this subject may best be summarized,
it seems to me, as follows: In the first chapter of Genesis,
God is introduced to us as the Creator. I n the second
chapter, man is introduced to us, as he came from the
hand of God. In the third chapter, the Devil is introduced
to us as the Tempter, the Source of all evil. And so we
find man in between God and the Devil; and that is where
he has always been, and always will be, in this present
world, with the power to choose between the two. There
is no doubt, of course, that God has power to save each
of us unconditiondly if He wishes to do so. But He does
not wish, nor does He choose, to do so. On the other hand
God can hardly be considered just should he save man
in his sins; hence, man must hear, believe, repent and obey,
to receive the fulfilment of God’s promise to save him.
O n the other hand, the Devil does izot hme the power to
lead any man into ruin unless the latter allows himself to
be led t o disobey God. God’s power (authority) plus
man’s obedience of faith will bring about salvation (elec-
tion), whereas the Devil’s power plus man’s yielding to it
brings about the latter’s condemnation (reprobation) .
(John 3:16-21;1 John 3:4-12,5:1O-l2, etc.).
A n amusing, but very simple and clear explanation of
the doctrine of election m it is givevt in Scriptwe has been
preserved for us by one of our pioneer evangelists. As the
story goes, Senator Vance of North Carolina was teasing
his old colored servant on the subject of religion: the old
man had been urging the Senator to become a Christian.
T h e Senator said, “I just don’t understand this doctrine of
election. I don’t know whether I can become a Christian
because I don’t know whether the Lord has elected me or
not.” “Marse Zeb,” answered the old Negro, “I can
’splain dat question ob ’lection. Fust, has yuh ’nounced
yo’self as a candidate?” “No, I suppose I haven’t,’’ replied
the Senator. “Yuh see,” said the old servant, “no man eber
gwine be ’lected t’ office who doan fust ’nounce hisself
238
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
as a canidate. Now yuh-all ’nounce yo’self as a canidate
fo’ de Lawd’s kingdom; den de Lawd he votes fo’ yuh,
and de debbil lie votes agin yuh; and den yuh vote fo’
yo’self, and yo’ an’ de Lawd make a ’jority, and y’all is
’lected.” This is the sum and substance of the whole
matter. A great campaign is going on all the time-a
campaign for the souls of men. O n one side, the Leader
is Christ, the Captain of our salvation (Heb. 2:lO) ; on
the other side, the leader is Satan, the arch-adversary of
all mankind ( 1 Pet. 5 :8 ) . The election has already been
held (Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet, 1:18-21, Rev. 1 3 : 8 ) . Christ voted
to save you so that you might enjoy the bliss of fellowship
with God in the Hereafter ( 1 John 1:3, 3 : 2 ) . The Devil
voted to condemn you to Hell, You, like every other
accountable human being, therefore, must cast the deciding
vote. As the matter stands now, the vote is a tie; and it
takes your vote to break the tie. YOZL either elect or COIZ-
deiizn you7wZf. The Gospel of Christ is not u power, nor
ove of the powers, it is fhe power of God unto salvation
to every one that believes (Rom. 1:1 6 ) , God has already
sent you a Letter (His Word as revealed in the New Testa-
ment) telling you what to do t o be saved and what to do
to “keep” saved (Acts 2:38, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Tim. 3:16-
1 7 ) . Why then should you expect Him to send along a
telegram, so t o speak, to pressure you into doing what He in
His letter commands you to do? The Gospel is a universal
amnesty proclamation to all mankind ( 2 Cor. 5 : 17-20)
offering free pardon to all who will meet the conditions.
B u t we ?nust m e e t the condifioizs if we expect evey t o
eiiAjoy the f i v e Gift (John 3:16-17). (Cf. Acts 4 : l l - 1 2 ,
2:38; John 10:27-28; 5:40; Rom. 5:1-2, 8:32; Heb. 5:9;
1 John 4 : 9 ) .
Suffice it to say here, in passing, t h a t Divine election is
election to certain ~~esponsibilities,in the proper discharge
of which the corresponding rewards are actualized. Thus
to fleshly Israel of old was committed the twofold task of
239
 GENESIS
preserving the knowledge of the living and true God
(monotheism) and preparing the way for the Messianic
fulfilment; and to the Church (spiritual Israel) is com-
mitted the twofold responsibility of preserving God’s truth
and proclaiming it throughout the world (1 Tim. 3 : 1 5 ;
Matt. 24:14, 28:18-20; Luke 24:45-49; Acts 1 : 8 ) . More-
over, Divine election, as we shall see later, has reference
not to individuals as such, but to a class: the elect are the
c‘whosoever-wills,’’ the non-elect the c‘whosoever-won’ts”
(Rev. 22:17).
S. Foreordination (Predestination), Foreknowledge, amd
“Fixity .”
The Greek verb proorizo occurs in six places in the
New Testament. The rendering in the various versions is
an excellent example of the manner in which translators
can “foul up” the meaning of a single word. This verb in
the Greek means literally “to fix beforehand,” “to pre-
determine,” etc. It occurs two times in Romans (8:29,
3 0 ) , two times in Ephesians ( l : y , 11), once in Acts
(4:28) and once in First Corinthians (2:7). In nll these
passages it should be rendered uniformly as “foreordain”
or as “predestinate” (ccpredestiney’). The A.S.V. gives it
as “foreordain,” as it should, in all of them. The King
James Version (A.V.) renders the four passages in Romans
and Ephesians as “predestinate”; it then gives Acts 2:48 as
“determined before,” and 1 Cor. 2:7 as “ordained before.”
Why all this variation? The R.S.V. gives the texts in
Romans and Ephesians and the one in Acts as “predestine.”
Then it proceeds to render 1 Cor. 2:7 as “decreed before.”
Again, why this absurd variation: why not use the same
English word in all six passages?
The distinction between the English words, “predesti-
nate” and “foreordain” is a matter of etymology. “Predesti-
nate” comes from the Latin, pro, “before,” and destino,
“fix,” ccdetermine,yyetc. This word reflects the influence
of the Latin Vulgate on the King James translators (who,
240
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
it will be recalled, Anglicized the Latin baptizo, which
was in turn a trailsliteration of the original Greek bajfizo),
The A.S,V. is consistent and correct in rendering the word
directly from the Greek as ccforcordain,” in all instances.
Just why the R S V , goes back to the Latin equivalent,
“predestine,” instead of adhering to the Greek original,
in the passages in Romans, Ephesians, aiid Acts, is a mystery
to this writer. Moreover, it then compounds the problem
by rendering 1 Cor, 2:7 as “decreed before.” Wliy not
just use “predestinate,” “predetermine,” or preferably,
“foreordain,” aiid be done with this babel of tongues?
What then is Predestination or Foreordination? Calvin
defines the word in his Iiistitutes as “the eternal decree of
God by which he has determined i n himself what he would
to become of every individual of mankind. For they all
are not created with a similar destiny, but eternal life is
foreordained to some, and eternal damnation to others.”
The doctrine is set forth in the Creed as follows: “By
the eternal decree of God for t h e manifestation of his
glory, some men aiid angels are predestinated unto ever-
lasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.
These men and angels thus predestinated and foreordained
are particularly and unchangeably designed and their
number is so certain and definite it can neither be in-
creased or diminished.” (See note at the end of this p a r t ) ,
It is recognized, of course, t h a t this older version of the
dogma has been modified in recent years, as, for example,
in the creedal statement (published in 1939) referred to
in preceding pages herein. However, there are many “die-
hards” who still cling to the original version. Perhaps we
should consider briefly here the texts most frequently
cited to support the old version, such as the following:
(1) Roiiz. 9:12-13. Here are two passages from t h e Old
Testament, but blended together by the Apostle. The
first is Gen. 25:21-23, the word of Yahweh to Rebekah
prior to t h e birth of Jacob aiid Esau. We have here a plain
241
 GENESIS
prophecy and that it is all it is: two sons are to be born,
namely, Jacob and Esau, and they are to become the pro-
genitors of t w o nations; moreover, the nation to be sired
by the elder is to “serve” the nation to be sired by the
younger son. The word of Yahweh has reference here, not
to individuals, but to nations. Esau never served Jacob in
his entire life-on the contrary, it was Jacob who gave
gifts to Esau a t the time of their reconciliation (Gen., ch.
3 3 ) . The over-all meaning of the passage is that God, as
H e had both perfect right and reason to do, had selected
Jacob, and not Esau, to be the ancestor of Messiah. The
statement. that “the elder shall serve the younger” was
simply a prophetic announcement that a t a future time
the Edomites (descendants of Esau) should become servants
of the Israelites (descendants of Jacob) : the prophecy is
clearly fulfilled in 2 Sam. 8:14. The second quotation in
Rom. 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” (from Mal.
1 :2-3 ) was uttered several hundred years after both Jacob
and Esau were dead. The statement again refers to the
two nations or peoples: it simply points out the fact that
the Edomites suffered divine retribution because of their
sins. (Gen. 32:3; ch. 36; Num. 20:14-21; Isa. 34:J).
( 2 ) Anolther oft-quoted passage is Row. 9:17-18. On
the face of it, this is a “poser,” but it is not necessarily so.
The question involved here is this: How did God demon-
strate His power through the instrumentality of Pharaoh?
He did it by bringing the stiffnecked ruler and his people
down t o the very edge of destruction. But how did God
“harden” Pharaoh’s heart (Exo. 4:21, 7:3, 14:4, 17) ?
He did it, not by directly willing it, not even by permit-
ting it, as is often stated (because permission implies a
certain measure of acquiescence, whereas God abhors evil
and does not will it the least bit) ; He did it negatively,
that is, by doing nothing to prevent Pharaoh’s hardening
of his own heart. “Whom he will he hardeneth.” How?
242
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
By not exerting pressure to prevent evil men from becom-
ing hardened in the practice of their own evil ways:
obviously, to interfere under such circumstances would be
equivalent t o ruling the moral universe by coercion.
( 3 ) Row. 9:20-24, Here we have the homely example
of the clay in the hands of the potter, The reference is
drawn from Jer. 18:1-10. The lesson is clear. It some-
times occurs that when the potter is turning a vessel on
the wheel, the vessel breaks, What is the cause of the
break? Certainly it is not that the potter foreordained
(willed) it to do so. Rather, the defect is in the clay;
being of inferior quality it becomes marred in the hands
of the potter. In such cases, does the potter cast it off
as useless? No. The potter, being a thrifty individual,
makes it into another kind of vessel, although one of in-
ferior quality. The potter makes a vessel unto dishonor
only when he cannot make anything else out of the clay
with which he is working. The clay is not poor because
the potter foreordained it to be so; it becomes poor only
when internal conditions combine to make it so. The
lesson is that the divine Potter’s reaction toward an in-
didual or a nation is determined, not by His own arbi-
trary will, but by the good or evil, whichever it may be,
that characterizes the individual or national character.
The statement in Jeremiah is an affirmation of the Biblical
(providential) “philosophy” of history. (Cf. John 5 :40,
Matt. 2 3 : 3 7 - 3 9 ) .
(4) Acts I 3 : 4 8 . Here the difficulty is with the word
“ordained,” which certainly is not the best translation.
Some, including McGarvey, render it “disposed”; others,
pointing up the fact that the verb is in the middle or
passive voice, hold that it should be rendered “determined
themselves” or “were determined,’’ i.e., by personal deci-
sions; A. T. Robertson translates it “appointed.” He states
expressly: “There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an
absolufum decretum of personal salvation. ... It was sav-
243
 GENESIS
ing faith that was exercised by those who were appointed
unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal
life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God’s grace
by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord”
(WPNT, 111, 200, 201). Obviously the passage empha-
sizes the fact that in this case it was Gentiles who were
determining themselves to eternal life by their acceptance
of the Gospel message. (Besides, there is no preposition
used here, such as pro, t o indicate ‘‘prey’or “fore” ordain,
dispose, or determine. The predetermining took place then
and there by those who disposed or appointed themselves
unto life eternal.) The same general idea is conveyed in
Acts 16: 14-the Lord opened Lydia’s heart, obviously,
through the instrumentality of the “eternal good news”;
as a result of her “giving heed unto the things which were
spoken by Paul” (cf. Luke 24:45). Faith comes only by
contact with-by reading or hearing-the word of Christ
(Rom. 10:17) ; the whole missionary and evangelistic
enterprise of the church in all ages is predicated on this
fact.
( I ) Rom. 8:28-30. Here we have a clear revelation of
one phase of the ultimate design of God’s Eternal Purpose,
namely, that His elect should ultimately be conformed t o
the im6ge of His Son, that He-the Son-might be the
“firstborn among many brethren.” The very essence of
this Eternal Purpose was that in all things Christ should
have the pre-eminence (Col. 1 :18, Eph. 1 : l o ) , hence that
He should be the firstborn from the dead, and that all
whom He should purchase with His own precious blood
(Acts 20:28) should be redeemed in spirit and soul and
body ( 1 Thess. f : 2 3 ) and so should ultimately wear the
form of His own glorified body (John 17:f; Matt. 17:2;
Rom. 2:7, 8:23; Acts 26:13; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:l-10).
Lard (CR, 283-284) : “When the prothesis was before God,
He foresaw that certain persons would, when the oppor-
tunity was presented, become His children. These in
244
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
purpose He accepted. Moreover, He then determined,
which was of course an act of predetermination relative
to the thing determined, t h a t in the resurrection their
bodies should be of the same form as the glorious body of
His Son. As He was predetermined to be like them before
He went into the grave, so they were predetermined to be
like Him after they come out of it, Thus it will be seen
that in t h e prothesis the Father placed before Him, not
only the resurrection of Christ, but also the very form
He should wear after it. Nor was this all. He there also
determined t h a t this form should be the bodily form for
all His children.” T o use this author’s terms, nothing is
said here of actuals; rather, everything is presented as in
prothetic form, i.e., as set or deterwitzed beforehafzd, hence
included in God’s Eternal Purpose, What then was fore-
ordained? The answer is: The class of those who should
ultimately be clothed in glory and honor and immor-
tality as distinguished from the class of those who should
not (John 5:28-29, Rev. 22:17, Matt. 25:46, Rom. 2:4-
11) . The foreknowledge, foreordination, calling, justifica-
tion, and final glorification are considered here only as
in God’s Purpose (Isa. 46:9-11). “Them also he called,”
that is, in His Eternal Purpose He called them: “not that
He called them in any special sense or special way, or that
He called them, and not others: for this is neither asserted
nor implied. But He called them, if before Christ, by the
preaching of the prophets and other righteous men; or if
under Christ, by the gospel; and just as He called them,
He called all, the difference being that they voluntarily
accepted, while the others wilfully rejected” (ibid., 283 ) ,
“Upon this acceptance, which consisted in the obedience of
belief, God justified them, remitted their sins, and hence-
forward held them as just. Now what took place here
prothetically far back in eternity, is precisely what is now
actually taking place every day under Christ” (ibid., 284).
(Cf. 2 Thess. 2:14; Rom. 1:16, 10:17; 1 Cor, 4:15, 1 Pet.
245
 GENESIS
1:23; John 1:40, 7:37, 12:44; 2 Cor. 1:2O; Rev. 2:1, 3:20,
22:17). Note the phrase, “from the foundation of the
world,” Matt. 13:31, 25:34; Luke 11:TO; John 17:24;
Eph. 1:4; Heb. 4:3; 1 Pet. 1:18-21; Rev. 13:8, 1 7 : s ) .
I n a word, it was the plun that was foreordained, not the
mun (as our oldtime preachers often put i t ) , the class
(the whosoever wills), not the individual. As others have
noted, the key verbs here-called, justified, glorified-are
all in the past tense; if “actuals” were thus intended rather
than the potentids envisioned in the Eternal Purpose, the
verb would need to be in the future tense, “them
he shall glorify.’’ Such statements as that found in Phil.
2:3-13, that God works in His saints “both to will and to
work, for his good pleasure,” are express declarations that
ultimate redemption is to be actualized only through
man’s conformity to the Plan-the foreordained Gospel-
which God’s grace has provided through the Atoning blood
of Christ (1 Cor. 2:2, Heb. 9:23-28). To summarize:
God foreknew this class us such (yet to be born), the
voluntarily obedient, committed to the Spiritual Life, the
whosoever wills, His elect; and He foreordained that these
should ultimately be conformed to the image of His Son
in the Life Everlasting, that is, clothed in glory and honor
and incorruption. (Rom. 2:7-8, 10:16; 2 Thess. 1 : s ;
1 Pet. 1:22, 4:17; Heb. 1:9; cf. also Matt. 18:3-1, 19:14;
Luke 18~11-17,etc.). The passage, Rom. 8:28-30, has
no reference whatever t o any Divine foreknowl*edge,fore-
ordination, election, calling, justification, sanctification, or
glorification of the individual members of this class as
.
individuals. (See esp. 1 Tim. 6 :13 - 16)
(64 Romans, cbs. 9, 10, 11. The same is generally true
of this section of the Epistle: it has reference only to the
destinies of the progenies of the two children, Jacob and
Esau, respectively. JB (281, n.) : “Paul’s theme of justi-
fication by faith led him to speak of the righteousness of
Abraham, ch. 4. Similarly here the theme of salvation
246
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
lovingly bestowed by God through the Spirit makes it
necessary for him to speak about Israel’s case, chs. 9-11, a
people which remains unbelieving though it has received
the promise of salvation, The subject of these chapters,
therefore, is not the problem of individual predestination
to glory, or even to faith, but of Israel’s part in the de-
velopment of salvation history, the only problem raised by
the statements in the O.T.” In 9:11, we are told expressly
that God did choose before their birth which of the two
sons of Isaac should carry forward the Messianic Line:
hence, election in this case was specifically “not of works,
but of him that calleth.” Nevertheless, from the view-
point of subsequent history, it did turn out to be one of
works (works of faith), in the sense that their respective
acts proved the one ancestor (Jacob) to be more worthy
of God’s favor than the other (Esau). Hence, in view
of the fact that men are predestined to be free, surely we
can not be far wrong in assuming that this superior
quality of Jacob’s character was foreknown by God from
the beginning. Although it may appear a t first glance
that the choice was an arbitrary one, our human hindsight
certainly supports God’s foresight in making it. Of course
Jacob’s character was not anything to brag about, until
after his experience a t Peniel (Gen. 32:22-32), from which
he emerged a changed man with a changed name (Israel),
certainly it was of nobler quality than that of Esau, as
proved especially by their different attitudes toward such
divine rights-and responsibilities-as those of primogeni-
.
ture (Exo. 13 :11-16, Deut. 2 1:17) Disregard for positive
divine ordinances (such as those of the birthright and the
paternal blessing, in patriarchal times) is known in Scrip-
ture as profanity (from pro, “outside” or “before,” and
funwn, “temple”), and hence is the vilest insult that can
be perpetrated against God-a f a c t which the sophisticated,
the respectable, the worldly wise of humankind are often
too biased to understand or a t least to be willing to admit.
247
 GENESIS
This is the charge leveled against Esau: his profanity was
such that he blithely and unconcernedly sold his birthright
for a bowl of beans (Heb. 12:16--“a mess of meat”).
And this general irreligiousness of the paternal character
seems to have passed down to his offspring (Num. 20:14-
21; Judg. 11:16-17; 2 Sam. 8:14; Psa. 137:7; Ezek. 25:12-
14, 3 Y : l - l I ; Amos 9 : l l - 1 2 , Joel 3:19, Obad. 1-20, etc.).
The Apostle now proceeds to expound the relative
destinies of Jews and Gentiles under God’s providence.
The Jews, his own people, he says, were chosen, not t o re-
ceive salvation above all others, but to prepare the race
for the ministry and work of Messiah, intending that when
Messiah came they, and Gentiles as well, should receive
salvation by accepting and obeying Him. God did no
injustice in choosing the Jews a t first to assume their
designated tasks in preserving knowledge of the living and
true God and in preparing the world for Messiah’s advent;
neither does H e now do any injustice in choosing the
Gentiles and rejecting the unbelieving Jews; H e has always
planned to accept those who should receive His Son and
obey Him as their Redeemer, whether Jews or Gentiles,
and to reject all who would not do so, as foretold re-
peatedly by the Old Testament prophets. The Jews made
the tragic mistake of seeking justification (and hence of
forfeiting their election) , not by belief in Christ, but by
works of the Law, the one way by which it can never be
found. They showed that their zeal was not according
to knowledge in their seeking to establish their own doc-
trine of justification, and this caused them to reject the
plan which God had provided. No justification is possible
to any person except on the ground of belief in Christ
and the benefits of His Atonement; and indeed all may
enjoy it, whether Jews or Gentiles, on the same conditions
(Rom. lO:l-lY, Acts 2:38, Gal. 3:27-29). This is the
substance of the Apostle’s teaching here, with all its rami-
fications. There is not the slightest intimation that elec-
248
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
tion means to the Children of Israel that they were
forechosen, individually or collectively, to be saved above
all other pepons; rather, it was election to responsibilities,
namely, those coniiected with preparing the world for
Messiah‘s advent. N o intimation of individual or national
predestination to special divine favors is to be found in
these chapters, Commenting on ch. 11, v. IJ, Lard sum-
marizes as follows (CR, 3 j 9 ) : “But the future reception
of the Jews will not consist in restoring them, as Jews, to
their former national prosperity, b u t in receiving them into
the divine favor in virtue of their obedience to Christ.
Their condition and state will then be precisely the same
as the present condition and state ‘of Christian Gentiles.”
(But-did not this reception begin on Pentecost, to
continue throughout the present Dispensation, on the
terms of the New Covenant? [Cf. Jer. 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 4 ; Heb.
8 : l - 1 3 ; Acts 2:37-38; 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 3:22-24; Eph.
2:13-18; Gal. 3:27-291.) (Cf. especially Rom. 11:32-
“For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might
have mercy on all” [cf. Gal. 3:22, Joel 2:28-32, Acts
2:11-21.] Does not “all flesh” in these texts [cf. Joel
2:28-32, Acts 2: 17-21] mean, essentially, without regard
to any distinction between Jew and Gentile? Cf. again
Eph. 2:13-17).
Professor Donald Nash has summarized so clearly our
problem with respect to ch. 9 of Romans and the doctrine
of foreordination that this writer could not improve on
it. Five principles should be kept in mind, he says, as
follows: “ ( I ) If it teaches anything a t all about election,
it is that those who trust in election shall be lost. (This
may sound facetious but it is true. The elect of chapter
9 are the Jews. Paul says they will be lost because they
trusted in election of Israel over Esau rather than accept-
ing Christ.) ( 2 ) When it speaks of election it is speaking
of nations not individuals-the nation of Israel in contrast
to the Gentiles. ( 3 ) It is dealing with a situation before
249
 GENESIS
the gospel when it speaks of the election of the Jews. (4)
God chooses individuals and nations to carry out His
purposes but not to be saved above others. ( 5 ) Election
in this chapter deals with temporal matters of the prepara-
tion for Christ through Israel, now with the matter of
one’s eternal salvation in the Christian dispensation” (art.,
“Foreordination in the Plan of God,” RH, Nov. 16, 1966).
T h e plain f a c t is that in these three chapters of .Romms
there is not t h e slightest reference t o any foreordination to
personul, eternal saluation of individuals as individuals.
( 7 ) Finally, in this connection, let us consider the
classic case of the betrayer, Judas Iscariot, one that has
been belabored throughout the centuries. See M a t t . 27: 1-
10; Acts l:lj-26; John 6:70, 71; John 13:2, 17:12. Note
Acts 1:25-Judas, we are told here, “fell away” from the
apostleship. Thus the question arises: Did Judas “fall
away” as a result of an arbitrary Divine ordination? Was
he the one person specifically foreordained (elected) to be
the betrayer of Christ? Was his identity as the betrayer,
as well as his dastardly act, foreknown “from the founda-
tion of the world”? Undoubtedly the betrayal was an
integral part of the whole Drama of Redemption: how,
then, did this particular person and his particular act fit
into the Eternal Purpose? T o this point the distinguished
contemporary philosopher, Maritain, writes (GPE, 9 5 -96) :
“The occurrence of certain good things presupposes some
sin, t a k e n collectively and indeterminately. No martyr
without some executioner. The Word was made flesh in
order to redeem the world by His sacrifice and His im-
molation, and this presupposes murderers. On the side of
the eternal purposes this supreme act of love and obedience,
that is, the immolation of Christ according as it is accepted
and willed by Him, and the infinite merits with which it
is resplendent, and the redemption that it effects-all the
good, a t once human and divine, of this immolation is
willed by God. But He wills all this good without willing
250
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
in any way, either directly or indirectly, the sin committed
by the authors o f the death of Jesus, This sin remains
absolutely outside the field of divine causation-God is
absolutely not the cause of it, even the cause per accidem”
God is nwwr wider aizy circunzstavces tbe cause of sin
(Jas. 1:13-1j,). How, then, do we account for Judas’s
defection? (1) In the first place, as Maritain goes on to
say, given the contributing circumstances, namely, the
distorted notion the Jewish leaders, especially the priests,
had of Messiah and His mission, their certain venomous
reaction to his utterly revolutionary teaching, including
His castigation of their sheer formalism and hypocrisy,
and the interrelationship of these factors and the politics
the Jewish leaders would be compelled to pursue in dealing
with the Roman civil authorities, in a word, “the unbear-
able scandal that Jesus was for the world of the doctors
and the public officials, there would be some among them
to send Christ to His death, just as in a town where every-
one is bilious there will certainly be a fight. That in
one manner or in another Jesus would in the end be
immolated-this was certain, inevitable” (ibid., 96-97) .
The story of mankind demonstrates again and again given
a complex of certain contributing circumstances, history
inevitably repeats itself. ( 2 ) Note also the statement of
Jesus in John 6:70, 71. Does not His statement here
intimate that He, knowing the character of Judas, de-
liberately called him to the apostleship for the purpose of
effecting His own Atoning Sacrifice for the sin of the
world (Heb. 12:2, John 1:29) ? Certainly Jesus demon-
strated repeatedly that He knew the inner thoughts and
intents of those whose lives He touched (cf. John 3:l-6,
4:16-18). (3) Finally, note John 13:2, 27; John 8:44,
17:12. Do not these statements by our Lord Himself
affirm explicitly that the motivation in the case of Judas
was of diabolical origin, that is t o say, of Satanic sugges-
tion? Surely the Father’s open avouching of the Sonship
271
 GENESIS
of Jesus following the latter’s baptism, and the accompany-
ing identification of Him as Messiah by the Spirit’s anoint-
ing (John 1:30-34, Acts 1 0 : 3 8 ) , was a direct challenge to
the Adversary to do his worst. Satan accepted the chal-
lenge, and thereby, we might add, unwittingly sealed his
own doom forever. After two failures personally to seduce
Jesus into the repudiation of His Atoning Mission (Matt.
4:1-11, 26:36-46; Luke 4 : 1 - 1 3 ) , the Devil (whose knowl-
edge, though superhuman, is not infinite), concluding
that his only chance of thwarting God’s purposes was to
bring about the murder of the One whom he now recog-
nized to be the real oracular wo’man’s Seed (Gen. 3:15,
Gal. 3 :1 6 ) . This he did by selecting the most likely agency
to accomplish his designs: that agency was Judas Iscariot.
And the character of Judas, as portrayed in the Gospel
narratives, certainly points to him as the one most amen-
able to do the ugly business. (We now know, of course,
that Satan’s colossal blunder was his failure to take into
account the Resurrection: this was the event which sealed
his eternal destiny in Hell: Heb. 2:14-15’ 1 Cor. 15:25-26,
Rom. 1 : 4 ) . (4) Incidentally, could not Judas have re-
pented of his sins and enjoyed redemption on the terms of
the New Covenant had his character moved him to such a
change of heart and life? Evidently the repentance of
Judas was a repentance unto death: it was motivated, not
by godly sorrow, but by remorse (“the sorrow of the
world”) ; hence, it was but the ultimate proof of his inner
depravity. H e had not the slightest notion of Divine
mercy and grace; therefore he went out and hung himself
(Mztt. 27:5, 2 Cor. 7:10, Luke 15:17-21, Acts 1:16-25).
(Divine foreknowledge of the acts of Judas does not neces-
sarily imply Divine foreordination of those acts, as we
shall see i n f r a ) . It was diabolical pressure (Satanic sug-
gestion), plus his own character, and not Divine fore-
ordination, which prompted Judas to betray his Master.
252
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
Some important questions arise a t this point, as follows:
(1 ) In the first place, does the omidscience of God include
absolute foreknowledge of all events, personal as well as
cosmic? If God knows what our acts will be before we
do them, can we truly be said t o be free? It is held gen-
erally, and has been, throughout the Christian era, that
omniscience does embrace total foreknowledge even of
human acrs. But this writer holds that the concept is
debatable, to say the least, Tabernacled within every
human being is the Breath of God which “giveth to all
life, and breath, and all things” (Gen. 2:7, Acts 17:2F).
The Breath of God is a metaphor of the creating and $us-
taining activity of the Spirit of God. Surely this means
that in every person there is an infinitesimal spark of the
very being of God; and to the extent that man has, and
can exercise, as the personal image of God, the power of
choice, he is of a rank above the strictly finite. To this
exteiit m a n is predestiiwd t o be free. Of course Infinity
can and does foreknow the consequences of human acts,
but whether Omniscience includes foreknowledge of just
what a man will choose to do, between or among alter-
natives, under all circumstances, seems to me to be a moot
question. ( 2 ) In the second place, granting the prob-
ability of Divine foreknowledge of human acts, does this
foreltiiowledge i w p l y fixity, as of ten claimed in the lingo
of “systematic theology”? Of course not. Suppose I
decide to eat a juicy steak to assuage m y physical appetite:
but suppose that, after due deliberation, I decide, for the
sake of my health, not to eat the steak. If I should carry
out the first of these actions, God would foreknow what
I do; if I should decide to carry out the alternative, again
God would foreknow what I do. In the very nature of
the case, whichever act I carry out, that is what God would
foreknow. In short, my free acts are the events which
constitute Divine foreknowledge. Does it not follow,
therefore, t h a t the fixity is set by the human act, not by
2F3
 GENESIS
God’s foreknowledge of it? I t is w h a t I do, that God
foreknows. This brings us to the crux of the problem.
( 3 ) I n the third place, then, does Divine forekmwledge
presuppose Divine f oreordination? Not necessarily. God
may foreknow that I am going to rush out into the street
a t a certain hour tomorrow and be r u n over and killed by
an automobile driven by a “drunk.” But does this mean,
necessarily, that God has folreordained my act (or even that
He ordained it a t the moment of its happening) to which
probably my own carelessness has contributed? Does it
mean, too, that He has foreordained (or that He ordained
a t the instant of its occurrence) that the driver of the
automobile in question should be intoxicated? It strikes
me that it would be silly to answer either of these ques-
tions in the affirmative. Moreover, for God to intervene
and prevent either my act or this driver’s drunkenness and
accompanying act would be ruling by coercion; and if He
should do this for either or both of us, He would be “duty
bound,” so to speak, to do the same for all persons under
the same circumstances, and this would be ruling the moral
universe by force. Had God chosen to exercise His Sov-
ereignty in this arbitrary manner universally, why did He
endow man with the power to think, to deliberate, to
weigh alternatives, and finally to choose and act. MacIver
(STS., 5 2 0 ) : “To live is to act; to act is to choose; and to
choose is to evaluate.” Again I ask: Can choice be made
by one who has been created in God’s image ever be fore-
known, much less foreordained? Akin to this question is
another: In the very nature of things, is it possible for
God to compel His creatures to love Him? Would such a
pressured or coerced response, if possible, ever be love?
(Parents know all too well that they cannot compel their
own children to love them), And is not the coaverse true:
that it is not possible for God to love a puppet? Fore-
knowledge does not necessarily presuppose foreordination.
M a n is predestined to be free. Thie same argument presented
2 14
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
here applies not oiily to predcstiiiariaizism, but to all forms
of predeternzinisin and fafalisilz us well. Within! the limits
of his acqi~aiii,~aizces/3ipwith alternatives, maiz does have
freedom of choice, In every human act, three factors are
involved, These are the forces of heredity, the forces of
environment, and the persoiaal reactioiz. It is the personal
reaction that tips the scales toward one alternative above
the other. True it is that “the stronger motive wins” in
the end. But why so? Because it i s the one which, for
personal reasons, appeals to me above all others. That is
to say, the “I” casts the deciding vote. The person is
characterized by self -determination: this means t h a t it is
the self which determines its own acts.
Let us look briefly for a moment a t some of the ideas
which have been put forward in explanation of the prob-
lems of Divine foreordination and human freedom. (Free-
dom we define as the power to act or not to act, or to
act in one way instead of another, in a given situation.
Voluntariness is the actual exercise of this freedom.) (1)
Augustine attempted to solve the problem by basing man’s
freedom to exercise his will on God’s foreknowledge that
he will exercise it, He writes (De Libero Arbz’trio, Bk.
111, translated by Burleigh; see KV, 437-441) : “Our will
would not be will unless it were in our power. Because
it is in our power, it is free. We have nothing that is
free which is not in our power, and if we have something
it cannot be nothing. Hence i t is not necessary to deny
that God has foreknowledge of all things, while a t the
same time our wills are our own. God has foreknowledge
of our will, so that of which He has foreknowledge must
come to pass. In other words, we shall exercise our wills
in the future, because He has foreknowledge that we shall
do so; and there can be no will or voluntary action unless
it be in our power. Hence God has also foreknowledge
of our power to will. My power is not taken from me
255
 GENESIS
by God’s foreknowledge. Indeed, I shall be more certainly
in possession of my power because He whose foreknowledge
is never mistaken, foreknows that I shall have the power.”
( 2 ) Thomas Aquinas agrees with Augustine in holding
that the man who is guided by his reason is morally and
spiritually free. Man, he says, is not governed by instinct
as animals are, but is distinguished from them by his power
of judgment which is guided by his reason. The reason
can determine whether a thing is good or evil and can
cause man to act accordingly. The Highest Good (Sum-
mum Bonum) is Perfect Happiness: this alone can never
be considered evil; and for this reason man wills happiness
of necessity. (Of course the Scholastics define Perfect
Happiness as ultimate union with God, the union of the
righteous mind with the Mind of God in knowledge, and
of the righteous will with the Will of God in love. Evil
they defined as the privation of good, arising from man’s
f ailure-or unwillingness-to distinguish between apparent
goods and real goods.) Because man’s choice is not of the
end, but of the means, the choice is not of the Highest
Good, but of particular goods; hence, because his choices
are in this area, he chooses freely and not of necessity.
( 3 ) William James contends that if God is thought of
as providing for possibilities (Bergson called them novel-
ties) within the universe (totality of created being), as
well as for actualities, chances may exist which even He
does not control. The course of the universe would be
fortuitous (hence ambiguous) to a degree, yet the ultimate
end would be that which is designed from eternity. This
is the doctrine known as telefinulism. God would not
necessarily know all the details, but only the possibilities,
until a t the moment or moments a t which they occur.
James sees man as a creative power per se in the determina-
tion of the flux of things, although God alone determines
the consummation (ultimate end). Cf. Isa. 46:9-11, Acts
3:21.
216
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
(4) The German philosopher, Kant, affirmed the
existence of facts lying beyond t h e bounds of the empiri-
cal: these are known by what he called “the ideas of
reason”-the concepts necessary to any comprehensive
philosophy of life, The exercise of freedom is determined
by the law of reason. The will is a cause that belongs only
to rational beings and is free in tlie sense that i t is not
determined by external causes, but by t h e autonomous
reason alone, It is not necessary, he tells us, to suppose
that the category of cause and effect applies beyond the
domain of spatio-temporal events. Therefore, since we
are bound to believe t h a t the will is free, in order to give
reality to the moral life, we can be consistent in holding
that the self belongs to the noumenal realm outside the
phenomenal order of space and time. Kant endeavors t o
show on moral grounds that men must believe that they
are free members of a rational and spiritual order, and
that, as such, they are also immortal. As a practical
necessity, he urges, we must believe in a Being (God) who
alone can guarantee the fulfilment of our craving for im-
mortality, and so give substance t o the moral life. Such
beliefs (acts of faith), are necessary postulates of what
he calls the “practical reason.” ( I t will be noted that for
Kant “immortality” meant only continuance of existence
beyond the grave: this, as we have shown on preceding
pages herein, is i i o t the Biblical doctrine of immortality.)
(5) According to John Locke, the fact t h a t events can
be predicted from knowledge of their respective causes
does not mean that these causes compel the occurrence of
the events. It is true, in theory at least, t h a t a human act
can be traced to past causes, if the causes are all fully
known. But it is equally true that human actions are, as
a rule, unpredictable, because it is impossible to identify
all the causal factors involved. When man acts voluntarily,
he does what he himself has decided to do. Freedom is
abridged only by external forces which can constrain him
257
 GENESIS
to act contrary to his will. (For example, suppose a
robber forces a man to hand over his pocketbook: in such
cases the victim does so, but not willingly: hence his free-
dom of action is constrained, but his freedom of will is
not affected.) Man could not be free if his will were
determined by anything but his personal desire under the
guidance of his judgment. Again, this all boils down to
the fact that the “I” casts the deciding vote.
(6) The tendency today among physicists is to regard
the workings of the cosmos as indeed very probable, but
not always determinate, As a consequence of the quan-
tum theory and its ramifications, it is fairly well evident
that physical laws do hold true, but only statistically. A
principle of spontaneity has been found even in the very
core of the atom. It is discovered that both the velocity
of an elementary particle and its position in space a t the
same instant cannot be determined: electrons seem to jump
from one orbit to another in an unpredictable manner;
moreover, because some signal must be transmitted from
the particle to the observer, the very act of scrutiny seems
to change what is being scrutinized. This is known as
the (Heisenberg) Principle of Uncertainty or Indeter-
minacy. Max Planck, first proponent of the quantum
theory, writes (“Where Is Science Going?” in KV, p. 459):
“The fact is that there is a point, one single point in the
immeasurable world of mind and matter, where science
and therefore every causal method of research is inappli-
cable, not only on practical grounds but also on logical
grounds, and will always remain inapplicable. This point
is the individual ego. It is a small point in the universal
realm of being: but in itself it is a whole world, embrac-
ing our emotional life, our will and our thought. This
realm of the ego is a t once the source of our deepest
suffering and at the same time of our highest happiness.
Over this realm no outer power of f a t e can ever have
sway, and we lay aside our own control and responsibility
258
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
over ourselves only with the laying aside of life itself.”
Sigmund Freud has written in similar vein: “Every psychic
association will be strictly determined by the attitudes of
the mind, which are unknown to us a t the nionient they
operate , . ,” (Quoted by Adler, in Sywopticoi?, Vol. 11,
of the Great Books series, p. 1 0 2 0 ) . Planck concludes
(0). cit., pp, 461-462) : “Freedom of the will , , , and its
independence of the causal chain is a truth that comes
from the immediate dictates of the human consciousness.
. . . Science thus brings us to the threshold of the ego and
there leaves us to ourselves. In the conduct of our lives
the causal principle is of little help; for by the iron law
of logical consistency we are excluded from laying the
causal foundations of our own future or foreseeing t h e
future as definitely resulting from the present. ... The
law of causation is the guiding rule of science, but the
Categorical Imperative-that is to say, the dictate of duty
-is the guiding rule of life.” (Kant’s Categorical Impera-
tive: “Act in conformity with that maxim, and that
maxim only, which you can a t the same time will to be
a universal law.” This, said Kant, is the essence of moral-
ity, and from it springs the only true moral motive-
obedience to moral law which has no other source than
respect for the autonomy of the law itself. This type of
action would be the manifestation of the good will, and,
says Kant, “Nothing in the whole world, or even outside
of the world, can possibly be regarded as good without
limitation except a good will.” His Practical Imperutiue:
So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person
or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal,
never as a means only.)
( 8 ) The Existentialists, in particular those of an atheis-
tic bent, affirm t h a t man is wholly free and responsible,
no matter what internal or external factors may seem to
bring about his decision. According to Sartre, in a god-
less universe (one with “no exit”) everything is possible:
2f9
 GENESIS
hence, man is precisely what he makes of himself; he is
“a free and forlorn entity.” He cannot put the responsi-
bility for his acts on his passions, nor on circumstances in
general, for the simple reason that each person is bound to
determine the manner of his reaction and hence is fully
responsible for his interpretation of the circumstances in-
volved. “We remind man,” Sartre writes, “that there is
no lawmaker other than himself, and that in his forlorn-
ness he will decide by himself; because we point out that
man will fulfill himself as man, not in turning toward
himself, but in seeking outside himself a goal which is just
this liberation, just this particular fulfilment” (Exst., p.
1 8 ) . Existentialism of all shades, of course, fairly reeks
with pessimism.
(9) Maritain, distinguished contemporary philosopher
(referred to, supra) , approaches our problem from an
entirely different point of view. God, he contends, does
not foresee-He sees; does not foreknow, but knows. God’s
realm is that of timelessness: this is essentially what etenzity
is. Hence there is no past, present, or future to God, but
only the everlasting Now. (Cf. 2 Cor. 6:2; also Exo.
3 : 14-the Name of Deity, I AM, HE WHO IS), Mari-
tain writes (EE, 87) : “God does not foresee things of
time, He sees in particular the free options and decisions
of the created existent which, in as much as they are free,
are absolutely unforeseeable. He sees them a t the instant
when they take place.” Again (GPE, 8 2 ) : “I have said
that the divine purposes are infrustably fixed from all
eternity from the fact that God, a t the eternal Instant to
which all the moments of time are present all together, has
freely formed such or such purposes for the world rather
than an infinity of other possible purposes, or even no
purposes a t all, for He was free not to create the world.”
Again (ibid., 7 9 ) : “All of this means-and let us mark
this well in our minds-that God has the entire course of
2 60
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
time physically present to His eternal Instant, and that H e
has it before His eyes in its entirety when H e establishes
all things from all eternity,” Again he writes of “the
physical presence of all the moments of time to divine
eternity,” “that eternity to which all the instants of tlie
life of a man, the last as well as the first, are present to-
gether” (ibid,, 90, 1 0 6 ) . Although it is utterly impossible
for the human intellect t o grasp the full meaning of this
concept, certainly it is a valid one, and one t h a t opens u p
celestial vistas radiant with possibilities of hope and frui-
tion. I have been convinced for some time that our
“bootlegging” of human notions of time into the realm
of God’s timelessness has projected into human thought
many irrelevant questions, questions t h a t are meaningless
insofar as actual human experience is concerned. The
tendency t o think of eternity as a kind of stretched-out
time has been, and still is, a source of great confusion: it
seems to me t h a t the Beautific Vision must be essentially
illu~izinatioiz from which t h e time element is removed al-
together (Matt. 5 : 8 , l Cor. 13:12, 2 Cor. 4:18, l John
3 : 2 ) , an illumination, however, which will carry with it
s s . seems t o be of
the sense of its own e v e ~ l a s t i ~ ~ g ~ i eTime
little consequence in God’s Cosmic Plan. He is portrayed
in Scripture as acting by Divine Fiat: sometimes the decree
is actualized a t the moment of utterance (as, for example,
especially in the miracles wrought by Jesus and the Apos-
tles, cf. Luke 7:2; Matt. 7:29, 8:26-27; John 1 1 : 4 3 ; Acts
2:22, 3:6; Heb. 2 : 2 - 4 ) , and a t other times actualized
gradually (progressively), t h a t is, by means of what we
speak of as “secondary causes,” or Yaws of nature” (cf.
Isa. 28:10, Mark 4:28, Gal. 4:4, Psa. 90:4, 2 Pet. 3 : s ) .
O n the basis of Maritain’s view, the prefixes fore and $re
have little significance, except perhaps in accommodation
to man’s present spatio-temporal environment ( 2 Cor.
4:16-18),
261
 GENESIS
( l o ) To summarize; Predestination or Foreordination in
Scripture has reference to the essential factors involved in
God’s Eternal Purpose; that is, as stated already, to the
plan rather than to the man, to the class rather than to
the individual. We are not surprised, therefore, to note
that the Gospel invitations are always clear: they definitely
imply that man can come to God by an intelligent response
to an intelligent appeal-a procedure that is designated
conversion (Acts 3 : 1 9 ) . This process is essentially psycho-
logical rather than mystical: first the preaching and hear-
ing (1 Cor. 1:21, Rom. 10:17), then, from the hearing to
understanding, to believing, to turning and obeying ( h a .
6:9-10; Matt, 13:14-15; Acts 28:26-27; John 1:12-13;
Acts 2:38; Luke 1 3 : 3 ; Rom. 10:9-10, 6:4-6; Matt. 10:32-
3 3 ; Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3 : 2 7 ) . Note the Lord’s own
precious invitation in Matt. 11:28. Note also Rev. 22:17
--“he that will” (A.V., “whosoever will”), “let him take
the water of life freely.” The elect are the whosoever
wills; and the non-elect are the whosoever won’ts. All
that ever stands between the sinner and his salvation is
his own stubborn will (John 5:20, Matt. 23:37).
One of our pioneer evangelists was invited on occasion
to have dinner in a hotme in which the wife was a strict
adherent of the “Primitive Baptist” faith. Her husband
had long been trying to convince her that she was in error
on the creedal dogma of election, but had failed. He asked
the evangelist to try his hand a t it. The evangelist con-
sidered it a hopeless task, but decided to make the effort
anyway. He went to the house. After the dinner had
been prepared, the good woman came to the door and
invited her husband and his guest to come to the table.
The evangelist went with the husband until he came close
enough to see the good things on the table; then he
abruptly turned back into the sitting room, saying, “I’m
not going to eat.” The poor woman did not know what
to think. She turned pale. She looked a t her husband,
2 62
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
he looked a t her, and both looked at the preacher, Finally,
she asked: “What’s the matter?’’ The preacher replied:
‘(I’m just not going to eat-that’s what’s the matter 1’’
The woinan was very nervous; neither she nor her husband
could understand this discourtesy. “Why won’t you eat?”
asked the woman, “I a m not going to eat simply because
you do not want me,” replied the evangelist, She looked
aghast. “If I had not wanted you as a guest, why would
I have prepared this meal?” ‘‘Yes,’’ replied the preacher,
“but how do I lcnow that you want me? You have not
told me that you want me. H o w do I know that you
mean it?” “Surely,” answered the woman, “you know it
from the fact that I prepared the meal and invited you
to be our guest.” “You mean it, then, and you really
want me?” “Certainly,’y answered the wife. “Then I
will eat.” After being seated a t the table and offering
thanks for the food, the evangelist said: “Now, sister, if
I had not come back to your table, that would have been
a n insult, would it not? And your feelings would have
been hurt very much.yy “Yes, indeed,” she replied, “and
I don’t understand yet what made you act as you did.”
“My sister,” said the evangelist, “I was merely acting out
your theology, that’s all. The Lord has prepared the
Marriage Feast. He has given you the invitation to attend
and partake of it. All things are ready. He has prepared
this Feast a t a great sacrifice and He urges you to come to
it. Yet your doctrine tells you that you can’t come until
He has told you in some mysterious way that He ?nea?zs it.
Why would He have prepared the Feast and invited you
through the Gospel-all a t such terrible cost-if H e did
not mean it?” The good woman saw the point, made the
Good Confession and was baptized into Christ.
God has told us clearly in the New Testament Scriptures
what we must do to be received into covenant relationship
with Him. Sinner friend, do you require Him to send
along a special “operation” of the Spirit ( a telegram, so to
263
 GENESIS
speak) to convince you that He means what He says in
His Word? God gave His Son, the Son gave His life
(John 3 : 16) , and now the Spirit gives you the Word, the
Gospel, telling you to believe, repent, confess, and be bap-
tized into Christ. These are the “mustsyyby which you
can appropriate the Gift: you can come to God only in
His way and on His terms. All who reject the Gospel call
will die without benefit of Divine promise and hence with-
out hope. Their end is everlasting separation from God
and all good. “Whosoever will, may come.” As the old
song has it, “that means everybody, that means you.”
Come now, and come “just as you are.”
6. “Final Perseverance”
This is the last of the complex of dogmas that go to
make up what is generally known as Calvinistic theology.
I n popular parlance it is the notion of “once in grace,
always in grace.” It is stated in the Westminster Confes-
sion (1939 edition) as follows: “Those whom God hath
accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified
by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from
the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein t o
the end, and be eternally saved. The perseverance of the
saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon
the immutability of the decree of election . . .” As C. H.
Spurgeon has put it: “The believer, like a man on ship-
board, may fall again and again on the deck, but he will
never fall overboard” (quoted by Strong, ST, 8 8 5 ) . It
would be difficult to find a clearer example of the fallacy
of the circular argument than we have here. Those who
hold this notion will affirm that a truly regenerated person
simply cannot fall away, but if it should turn out that
someone who has professed regeneration should, later in
life, drop out and never come back to the fold, that would
be proof that he was never regenerated. This view is the
logical corollary of the dogma of unconditional election,
which is stated by Strong (ST, 8 8 2 ) as follows: “Election
2 64
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
of certain individuals to salvation i s ekction to bestow
upon them such influelices of the Spirit as will lead them
not only to accept Christ, but to persevere and be saved.
Union with Christ is indissoluble; regeneration is the begin-
ning of a work of new creation, which is declared in
justification, and completed in sanctification, All these
doctrines are parts of a general scheme, which would come
t o naught if any single Christian were permitted to fall
away.” That is to say, the path of the elected is mapped
out for them; it can lead nowhere but to Heaven, simply
because they have been elected to go to Heaven. (Obvi-
ously, the dogma ignores the fact that the saiizts eiijoy
election, justification, aird samtif ication, only as a result
of their ow11 co-operation with God, accordiirg to His plan,
and 011 His terms, in their liviiig the Spiritual Life. 2 Pet.
3:18.)
(1 ) Let us note the Scriptures commonly cited in sup-
port of this dogma. (a) Johw 10:21-30. But if a man is
among the sheep, it is because he hears and obeys the
Lord’s voice and follows Him voluntarily, not because the
Lord builds a barbed wire fence around the sheepfold to
keep him inside. Growing in grace involves a man’s
abidiiig in Christ and in His Word (John 8:31-32, 14:11,
1?:7, 11: 14; 2 John 9 ) . As long as the Cliristian diligently
follows Christ (Rom. l2:1-2), no enemy of God or man
can snatch him out of the Father’s hand, But the person
can snatch himself out of God’s hands, just as a stubborn
old ram (or goat, Matt. 21:31-33) can, and often does,
jump over the fence only t o be devoured by wolves. ( b )
Johw Ii:24. This is one of the numerous Scriptures in
which bearing means, not just listening, but also belieuiiig
and obeyi~ig. After a man becomes a Christian he must
be nourished on spiritual food and drink (John 4:10,
6:63; 1 Cor. 3:2; 1 Pet, 2 : 2 ) . But-think of the names
on church membership rolls of persons who neglect, or
ignore altogether, the Lord’s Supper, stewardship, the stated
265
 GENESIS
assembly, soul-winning, everything vital to the Spiritual
Life! They are starving themselves, and if they persist
in this course, they will eventually commit spiritual sui-
cide. If God were to employ coercive measures (brain-
washing?) to restore them, He would, as a matter of
consistency, be compelled to do the same in every case;
and so again salvation would be made to depend on God’s
will, and not on man and God working together. This
would be contrary to reason and justice. God is not a
respecter of persons (Col. 3:21, 1 Pet. 1:17). This dogma,
if logically followed, can lead only to the absurdities of
Universalism. (c) Row. 11:28-29 (A.V.) “The gifts and
calling of God are without repentance” (A.S.V., “are not
repented o f ” ) . All such matters as pardon, justification,
remission, the indwelling Spirit, eternal life, are the gifts
-the favors-of God bestowed freely out of the abun-
dance of His grace. Does it mean that these favors are
bestowed without repentance and obedience on man’s part?
Certainly not (Luke 1 3 : 3 , Acts 17:30); for God to act
thus would be His putting a premium on impenitence and
rebell,iousness! The A.S.V. gives the correct rendering:
the favors of God are bestowed on certain conditions (the
keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19, John 20:22-23)) and
from these conditions God will not turn (Acts 2 : 3 8 ) .
God has concluded both Jew and Gentile under sin that
H e may manifest His grace to all, Jew and Gentile alike,
on the same terms: but all alike must comply with the
terms (John 1 5 : 7 ) : those who fail to do so cannot expect
to receive the fulfilment of the Divine promises. (d) 1
Cor. 10:13. How true these words! The Christian never
faces temptation without God’s having provided for him
the way of escape. Among these helps in resisting tempta-
tion are knowledge of the Word (Matt. 4:4,7, 10; 2 Tim.
2:19, 3:15-16; Rom. 10:8-10); prayer (1 Thess. 5:17);
personal confession of sins to God from day to day ( 1
John 1 : ~ ) .For every Christian there is the temptation-
266
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
and there is the way of escape, T w o doors are open before
him: in one stands the devil of pride, rage, lust, beckoning
with strong appeals; in the other stands the angel of mercy
with outstretched arms, Which door will he enter?-the
amwer dejeizds oiz him; the decisioia rests with kina. (e)
1 Pet, 1:4-J. God’s saints are guarded Ifkrougb f a i t h unto
a salvation to be revealed in the last time, But what is
this faith: in its real sense, it is an active, living, ever-
deepening commitment in spirit and soul and body to
the Will of Christ (Rom. 12: 1 - 3 ) , This does not mean
that God pressures His elect-by exercising mystical in-
fluence upon them from time to time-into maintaining
their vital relationship with Him. Such mystical influ-
ences are not necessary, because the Word is always a t
hand, in their mouths and in their hearts, the Word of
the Spirit, which is God’s power unto regeneration and
sanctification (Rom. 10:6-17, Luke 16:27-31, 1 Pet. 3:15).
Heaven will be populated only with Overcomers (Rev.
2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3 : 5 , 12, 21). But the allurements of the
world, the flesh, and the devil are very powerful, so power-
ful that oftentimes the very elect permit themselves t o
be deceived and dragged down into the pit. ( f ) Row.
8:3 8-39. This is literally true. There is nothing-abso-
lutely nothing-that can separate us from the Love of
God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; that is, notr5in.g
outside ourselves. But we can separate ourselves from His
blessings if we persist in our backsliding: we cun cownit
spiritual suicide. Even though our backsliding grieves
His Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:3 0 ) , absolute Justice demands
that we suffer the penalty for our impenitence. The grace
of God is iizdispemable, but it is i i o t irresistible (Acts
7:51). (g) I Job??3:9; c f . 1 Joh~z1:9-10. Concerning
1 John 3 : 9 , Robertson writes (WPNT, VI, 2 2 3 ) : “the
present active infinitive baiizarta?zein can only mean ‘and
he cannot go on sinning.’” One who has truly been be-
2 67
 GENESIS
gotten of God simply cannot go on sinning habitually:
though he may fail a t times, and surely does, his disposi-
@on is t o do the Will of God.
( 2 ) N o w let us note the Scriptures w h i c h expressly
assert, or intimate, the possibility of falling away. 1 Cor.
10:1-12; Luke 9:62; Luke 8:13-note those who receive
the word with joy, and for a time believe, but having no
root, in time of temptation fall away; Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor.
9:27; 1 Tim. 1:18-19; 1 Tim. 4 : l ; Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31,
l 2 : 1 5 ; 2 Pet. 2:20-22. For the erring Christian, the way
back to God is through repentance and prayer (Acts 8:22,
1 John 1 : 8 - 1 0 ) . It is to be noted here that one book of
the New Testament tells us what to do to be saved, namely,
the books of Acts; but there are twenty-one books telling
us what to do to continue and to grow in the Spiritual
Life ( 2 Pet. 3 : 1 8 ) . Obviously, if we could not fall away,
most of the N e w Testament C a n o n would be useless.
( 3 ) N o t e also those Scriptures which either assert or
intimate t h a t spiritual life and growth are contingent ugon
steadfast discipleship throughout one’s life. John 8 :3 1 ,
15:4-8; 2 Tim. 3:14; Heb. 2:1-Acts 14:22, 1 Cor. 1 5 : J 8 ,
Col. 1:23, 2 Thess. 3:13-1 Cor. 16:13; 1 Thess. 3:8, 5:21;
Tit. 1:9; Heb. 4:14-Heb. 12:1-2 Pet. 1:1O-II-TPhil.
3:13-16; Heb. 6:1, 10:23; 2 Tim, 4:6-8-Matt. 10:22,
Rev. 2:lO-2 Pet. 2:5-7, Gal. 5:22-24. Note that the
precious and exceeding great promises of God are only for
the Overcomers (2 Pet. 1-4; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, etc.).
Note Phil. 2:12-13, 1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6 : l . Spiritual life
and growth are achieved by God and man working to-
gether, in God’s way. We as Christians work out our own
salvation by continuing steadfastly in His Word; and a t
the same time God works in us and through us in the
sense that His Word directs us and His Spirit sanctifies us.
God’s part is sanctification; man’s part is perseverance.
(a) There is not a single Scripture which can be cited
to support the theory that it is impossible for a Christian
268
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
to fall away, (b) To be sure, it is improbable that one
who has truly been converted will fall away, but not im-
possible by any means, Even a professing Christian can
commit spiritual suicide, ( c ) The natural tendency of
human beings is to follow the lines of least resistance,
especially in the realm of the spiritual. This dogma en-
courages such an attitude: it: promotes spiritual indolence.
It causes men to think, “If I cannot fall away, why should
I exert myself too much in cultivating the Spiritual Life?
Why not let the matter rest with God?” Let us, rather,
instead of waiting for God to do something for us, get
busy doing something for God, Let us be u p and doing
for God, knowing t h a t the night cometh when no man
.
can work (John 9 :4,Rom. 1 3 :1 2 )
A backwoods preacher once summarized the doctrine of
perseverance in three terse sentences: (1) take hold, ( 2 )
hold on, and ( 3 ) never let go. This truly is perseverance
(Matt. 10:22),
Some years ago a small town newspaper printed the
story of two boys who were making their way along the
street with a small wagon loaded with scraps of fuel they
had picked up in the railroad yards. One boy was ahead
pulling-his hat pushed back, eyes sparkling, and himself
whistling cheerfully. The other was behind pushing, and
whining repeatedly because he stubbed his toes or stepped
on a rock or some gravel, or griping because the work
was too hard. Finally the boy in front turned and rebuked
him in these words: “Of course there’s stones in the road!
There’s always stones and sticks in the road, and a feller’s
got to get over ’em the best way he can. It don’t help
for you to howl every time you strike ’em either. Shut
your mouth and keep on pushin’ and we’ll get there.”
This rebuke was an eloquent sermon in itself. In any area
of life, the crown of victory is reserved only for the Over-
comers ( 2 Tim. 4 : 6 - 8 ) .
269
 GENESIS
People fail in this world because they are not firm
enough in “stick it out.” The same is true, unfortunately,
of many who make a profession of Christianity: they do
not will to continue steadfastly (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor. 15:jS).
The longer I live, the more I am convinced that m a t of
us are what we will to be. “Not failure, but low aim is
crime”-and sin.
7. The Divine Problem
Following man’s temptation and fall, the problem before
the Divine government was twofold: ( 1 ) that of satisfy-
ing off ended and violated Justice (Righteousness). The
law of God, the supreme law of all being, had been tram-
pled under foot by rebellious man. The majesty of the law
had to be sustained, else God would have been humiliated
in the sight of all intelligent beings, and would have been
guilty of putting a premium on sin. The father who
never holds his children responsible for their violations of
parental authority will soon see all kinds of disorder pre-
vailing in his home, The state (civil society) which does
not hold its citizens accountable for violations of the civil
law will soon find itself in a condition of hopeless anarchy.
Law must be sustained, or it ceases to be law. But, in
the case of our first parents, it was the Divine law which
had to be sustained, not human law; hence, no offering
that the earth or its inhabitants could make would suffice
to accomplish this end. ( 2 ) That of overcoming the
rebellion in man’s heart. Sin had entered it and separated
him from God. No doubt all intelligent creatures thought
that man would go the way of the fallen angels. But not
so: God loved man too much to allow him to be lost for-
ever, as are the angels who have been reserved in chains
of darkness unto the Last Judgment ( 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6 ) .
(Besides, man had been seduced by the Tempter, whereas
the angels who left their first estate had been moved to
rebellious anarchy solely by their own interior choice.)
Yet how could the rebellious creature-that is, mankind
270
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
in general-ever be won back into reconciliation with God?
( 2 Cor. 5:17-21), Punishment would not do it, but
would only serve to drive him farther and farther away,
There was but oiie w a y by whicb this t w o f o l d jroblein
could be resolved, ~iaiizely,by aiz 0fferin.g 011 the pmrt of
Heaueii itself, so costly that if would, ~ r tthe same time,
uiiidicate the iuajestji of the law violated aiid fully demon-
strate Gon’s imnzeasurable love for those created in His
own, image. Hence, great as the problem was, the solution
had already been determined in the councils of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. As stated heretofore, the ineffable
Gift of God was announced first, in purpose, from Adam
to Abraham; secondly, iii jroiizise, from Abraham to Isaiah,
thirdly, in prophecy, from Isaiah t o Malachi, and in prep-
aratioii, from Malachi to Pentecost, A.D. 30; and finally,
was actualized in f a c t by the death, burial and resurrection
of God’s Only Begotten. The sinner who can look on
Calvary and not be touched by a feeling of sorrow for
his own sins ( 2 Cor. 7: 10) must indeed have put himself
beyond the possibility of Divine election. (Gen. 3:15;
Gen. 12:3; Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:16; Acts 3:25; 1 Pet. 1 : l O -
12; Acts 3 : 1 8 , 26:22-23, 10:43; Matt. 3:2; Luke 24:45-
49; John 19:20; Acts 1 : l - 5 ; 1 Cor. 1 5 : l - 4 ; Acts 2:22-36).
(Note Robertson Smith, RSFI, 62: “To reconcile the for-
giving goodness of God with His absolute justice, is one
of the highest problems of spiritual religion, which in
Christianity is solved by the doctrine of the atonement.”)
The Plan by which man is brought back into relation-
ship with God, with accompanying privileges of worship,
meditation, prayer, faith, hope, love, obedience, etc., is
comprehended in the term religion. The process by which
the eternal Word became flesh, that is, took upon Himself
t h e nature of the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:14-17, Phil.
2: 5 -1 1) , is expressed by the word incar~iatio~? (Luke 1 :3 5 ,
John 1: 1 4 ) . The process by which Christ vindicated the
majesty of the Divine law which had been violated is
271
 GENESIS
comprehended in the term atonement (covering, for the
sin of the world, John 1 :29; Heb. 9:23 - 2 8 ) . The applica-
tion of this Divine plan to the souls of men, by grace,
through faith, includes the processes of remission, justifica-
tion, sanctification, and glorification, all of which taken
together, constitute redemption (Heb. 9 : 1 2 ) . All these
processes, moreover, attain fruition in the Life Everlasting,
Union with God, The Beatific Vision ( 1 Cor. 13:12, 1
John 3 : 2 ) .
,I. :I. * ,I. ,I.

N.B.-The two quotes in the third paragraph under

section 5 above are from an article by Professor Donald
Nash, in T h e Restoration Herald, December, 1966. The
article is captioned, “Foreordination In The Plan of God.”
Professor Nash has been kind enough to inform me that
the first excerpt was taken from a compendium of Cal-
vin’s Institutes entitled “John Calvin on the Christian
Faith,” appearing as part of the Library of Liberal Arts,
Oskar Piest, general editor, and John T. McNeill, editor
of this particular work. Published by Bobbs Merrill, In-
dianapolis, 1957. The latter, in his Introduction, states
that his text of Calvin’s works in from the seventh edition
of John Allen’s translation published by the Presbyterian
Board of Christian Education. The quotation is on p. 92
of the work cited and is from ch. 21 of the Institutes,
entitled “Eternal Election,” or “God’s Predestination of
Some to Salvation and Others to Destruction.”
The quotation from the Creed was taken from the book,
What Americans Believe and How T h e y Worship, by J.
Paul Williams, p. 208, (in which he cited the Constitution
of the Northern Presbyterian Church), published by
Harper and Row, 19 j2. Although Milliams concludes
that this position is no longer held by the majority of
groups historically in the stream of Calvinistic rheology,
Professor Nash writes that “Floyd Hamilton in his com-
mentary on Romans published in 1958, commenting on
272
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
these very verses [Rom. 8 :2 8 -291, seemingly holds very
dogmatically to this view and could be said to be repre-
sentative of others.” (Nevertheless, it is my conviction that
this problem needs to be reviewed thoroughly, a t this point
in the present text-C,C,C,)
;I. :: x. x. Y

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Huiizaii Attitudes Toward S u f f wing
Human attitudes toward suffering are varied, such as
the following especially:
1. Denial, that is, the outright denial of evil in any
form. ( 1) Oriental mysticisms-Brahmanism, Buddhism,
Taoism, etc.-agree in regarding life itself as illusion
(nzaya) . ( 2 ) Absolutists in philosophy-those who define
the Absolute as the All-embracing-find themselves im-
paled on the horns of a dilemma of their own making,
namely, ( a ) they must admit that the Absolute, in the
sense in which they use the term, must eqizbrace evil as
well as good, or (b) they must resort to the view that all
evil is illusion, (“illusion of mortal mind”). As the old
limerick goes:
There was once a mind healer named Deal,
Who contended that pain isn’t real,
But when he sat on a pin
And it punctured his skin,
H e said, “Faith, I don’t like what I faizcy I feel.”
Of all the Absolutist philosophers, the best example is
Spinoza, in whose philosophy (“ethics geometrically dem-
onstrated”) the totality of being is pictured as a com-
pletely closed system, God Himself being this totality, in
which there is no freedom of will whatsoever. ( 3 ) But
to treat evil as illusion is simply a proof of blindness to
the facts of everyday experience. The idea is utterly un-
realistic. Not only so, but it is illogical as well. Even
273
 GENESIS
if a person could convince himself that suffering, for
example, is all illusion, that would not make it so. Obvi-
ously, an illusion must be an illusion of something: an
illusion of nothing or nothingness is inconceivable. More-
over, how does this illusion “of mortal mind” originate?
And would not the illusion itself partake of the character
of evil, in the sense of imperfection or finitude? All that
any thinking person needs to do in our time is to read the
daily papers with their horrible accounts of murders, riots,
vicious sex crimes, kidnapings, violence and lust of every
kind, not to mention embezzlements, thefts, robberies,
attempted frauds, etc., to realize that all this is not illu-
sion: it is stark reality. (4) Closely related t o the illusion-
ist attitude is the childish, Pollyanna-like outlook, the
ultra-optimistic view which is equally unrealistic. As
Browning has put it,
“God’s in His heaven,
All’s right with the world.”
Anyone knows that this is largely sentimentality. True it
is that God’s in His Heaven, but surely no intelligent per-
son would question the fact that all is rcot right with the
world. No-there is evil in the world: there is deceit,
treachery, cruelty, suffering, violence, global warfare, etc.
But all these things are in the world because man brought
them into the world. ( 5 ) It has been rightly said that
man’s troubles arise from one or more of three sources:
( a ) from what a man does to himself, (b) from what
others may do to him, and ( c ) from the physical frame-
work of this temporal world which now is his habitation.
From the processes of the physical world around him man
is constantly subject to such catastrophic events as
droughts, floods, epidemics, earthquakes, volcanoes, tor-
nadoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. But true Christians
do not allow themselves to be lured into self-destroying
274
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
pessimism by these catastrophes; they accept them, rather,
as inherently characteristic of this terrestrial sphere; hence,
like the saints of old, they confess they are but pilgrims
here, as by faith they journey toward “the city which hath
foundations, whose builder and maker is God’, (Heb. 11:8-
1 6 ) , (Matt. 6 : 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 Cor, 4:16-18, Rom. 8:24-25).
( 2 ) Escape. That is, the cowardly attitude of “getting
away from it all,” or in the lingo of gangland, “taking a
run-out powder.” ( a ) Agnosticism is one form of the
escapist attitude. As Bob Ingersoll once put it: “I do not
say that there is no God; I simply say that I do not know.
I do not say that there is no future life; I simply say that
I do not know.” Of course, on the pretense of the im-
possibility of reaching a solution, or even a partial solution,
of life’s most persistent problems (what am I? whence
came I? and, whither am I bound?), one, theoretically a t
least, disavows all responsibility for making an effort to
find these solutions. It is so much easier to profess agnos-
ticism than to defend atheism. Someone has remarked
that an agnostic is a man who wants to be an atheist, but
lacks the “intestinal fortitude” to openly declare his athe-
ism. (b) Since in Oriental cults life is illusion ( m a y n ) ,
“salvation” becomes a matter of escape from this illusion,
escape achieved by the rigid suppression of all individuality
and individual desire, by ultimate absorption into “the
ocean of undifferentiated energy” (variously known as
Brahma, Tao, Unity, The One, etc.). Note the vast
difference here between the Eastern and Western views of
life, Whereas in the East, life is regarded as illusion, in the
West it is held to be man’s greatest good, and its highest
ends, love and service for God and for our fellow men
(Matt. 22:34-40) ; and salvation is the perfecting of the
person’s interior life in preparation for ultimate Union
(fellowship) with God (Col. 3:3-4, 1 John 3 : 2 - 3 ) .
Whereas in the East the destiny of the soul is Nirvana
27 I
 GENESIS
(absorption into Brahma, Tao, The One, etc.), in the West
it is final Union with God-not &sorption which is essen-
itally the loss of individuality, but fellowship of redeemed
persons with the personal God, the living and true God,
actualized by the living of the Spiritual Life (2 Pet. 3 : 1 8 )
-known Scripturally as the Life Everlasting; or for those
who reject God’s gift of Redemption, final separation
“from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might”
(2 Thess. 1:9-10, Matt. 25:31-46). It is difficult to see
how these completely opposite views can ever flourish in
what is wishfully called in one breath “peaceable co-
existence,” and in the next, “cold war.” Obviously this
is one instance in which “East is East and West is West,
and never the twain shall meet” (Kipling). ( c ) Many
try to escape frustration or adversity by resort to alcohol
(“drowning their sorrows in the flowing bowl”), or to
narcotic drugs, including the latest, LSD, by means of
which Satan truly fashions himself into an “angel of light”
(2 Cor. 1 1 : 1 4 ) . Many resort to the psychiatrist. Ten-
nessee Williams, for example, in an issue of a well-known
magazine not so long ago, was reported as confessing that
he suffered great periods of depression. What does he do
about them? “I now rely mainly on drink and pills,” he
said. “My intake of liquor is about a fifth a day-half of a
fifth of bourbon and half of a fifth of vodka.” To
combat insomnia, “I take up to four sleeping pills.” The
dramatist tells us that when he is a t home in Manhattan,
he treats himself to long periods of adjustments: “My
analyst helps me, and without him I’d be sunk. I go to
him five times a week.” Someone has rightly said that the
neurotic builds air castles, the psychotic lives in them, and
the psychoanalyst collects the rent. (d) Another form of
escape is known as (bedonism, which is the undisciplined
pursuit od the pleasures of the flesh. Biography abounds
with the names of literateurs, and other artists, who have
276
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
spent their lives violating every moral law “in the books,”
and who manifest no respect for anyone, not even for
themselves, For t h e hedonist, sex is not to be associated
with sin-it is to be regarded as a kind of “fun thing.”
Among devotees of this “persuasion,” all kinds of sex
perversion are pursued with the avidity that i s not to be
found even among brutes, The pitiful Oscar Wilde evi-
dently tries to tell us t h a t Dorian Gray, in an attempt to
kill his conscience, killed himself, But was not this a fic-
tional treatment of an autobiographical fact? Somerset
Maughan’s wife had to leave him finally because she could
no longer tolerate his homosexuality. The novelist’s
nephew, Robin Maugham, quotes his uncle as saying: “I’ve
been such a fool. My greatest mistake was this: I tried
to persuade myself that I was three-quarters moral and
that only a quarter of me was queer-whereas really it
was the other way round.” (See the nephew’s Somerset
aud AI1 the Maugkanzs). Isadora Duncan, the noted
dancer, is described as “one of the most libertine, hedonis-
tic American expatriates of the early twentieth century.”
Theodore Dreiser, one of the first protagonists of what is
generally called “realism” in our day, is described as “a
complex, evil, deceitful, selfish, pathological liar, a woman-
obsessed writer, guilty of all the sins” (see Swanberg’s
Dreiser). The inability of the mentally ill to distinguish
between fantasy and reality is one of the ghosts who haunt
the characters in Albee’s play, Vko’s Afraid of Virginia
VooZf? and, it is well said, “their self -destructive diatribe
provides the melodramatic action.” The title of this play
is derived, obviously, from this same (shall we call it?)
tragic frailty which characterized the career of Virginia
Woolf herself, who, we are told, suffered from mental
illness and intermittent suicide drives, until finally she
drowned herself. Albee seems to have patterned much of
his literary output along this same quasi-schizophrenic line,
277
 GENESIS
of course with heavy emphasis on sex (geared to the tin-
kling of coins at the box office). (For an excellent state-
ment of the escapist attitude toward life’s vicissitudes, the
reader is referred to a letter written by a female character,
“Grace Dexter,” to her sister, in a book by the late Lloyd
Douglas, entitled Green Light), (e) Finally, the escapist
attitude may take the form of outward (assumed) non-
chalance, what is called “gay imperturbability.” (This
is expressed perfectly by “Peter Alden,” one of the leading
characters in Santayana’s novel, The Last Puritan), This
is the who-cares, what-difference-does-it-make response t o
life. Everything we do is futile; we may as well take the
vicissitudes of life lying down; so why kick against the
pricks? If trouble doesn’t come in a t the back door and
strike one down, it is bound to come in, sooner or later,
by the front door, to cause one to be carried away in a
hearse. So, why not say with Popeye, “I yam what I yam,”
and let it go a t that. Of course nonchalance is just another
form of “whistling in the dark.” No person can go
through life always suppressing the basic problems of the
meaning of it all: they obtrude themselves repeatedly de-
spite what men may think or say or do: like Banquo’s
ghost they will not “down.”
3 . Rebellion. For example, the poetry of Walt Whit-
man, or Swinburne’s “Glory to man in the highest, €or
man is the master of things.” It is also clearly expressed
in Henley’s poem, Znuictus: “I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.” One can almost hear the
poet’s chest-thumping as he wrote these lines; naturally,
he committed suicide. The world owes me a living, shouts
the human rebel, and if it does not give me a living (on
easy terms, of course), I will become an anarchist, a
et
Communist,” a beatnik, a hippie, or a kook, a hater of
mankind. I will grow long hair and let my face become
concealed behind a dirty beard, and I will go about the
streets, barefoot, greasy and unwashed, hurling impreca-
278
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
tions a t everybody and everything. I will be the “demon-
strator” of all “demonstrators,” the strictest conformist of
all conformists. I insist on being consumed with self -pity
on meeting “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”
which are hurled a t me by that elusive nondescript some-
thing called “Fate” or “Destiny,” I will project the blame
for life’s troubles on the hormones, on the Subconscious,
on t h e Unconscious (“hidden motives”) , on an unpleasant
childhood, even on “the old Adam in me”; or I will even
“curse God and die,” as old Job was urged to do. Orgies
of self -pity terminate o d y in persolidity rot. The history
of the race is replete with the names of those rebels who
have walked “in the way of Cain” (Jude 11) who himself
cried out in the ignorance of despair: “My punishment is
greater than I can bear” (Gen. 4:13). “Papa Heming-
way” is reported to have said t o his friend, Hotchner,
“There won’t be another spring. If I can’t exist on my
own terms, then existence is impossible. That is how I’ve
lived, and that is how I must live.” And so, suffering
with cancer, he “shuffled off this mortal coil.” But who
ever did, or ever will,, “exist on his own terms”? Life is
not built t h a t way. (For other rebels who have walked
in the way of Cain, read especially Eugene O’Neill’s last
play, Loiig Day’s Journey Into Night, autobiographical in
character; or Mark Twain’s bitter diatribe against religion,
published posthumously; or Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, N o
Exit), Truly, “Good understanding giveth favor, But the
.
way of the transgressor is hard” (Prov. 1 3 : 17) This no
doubt would be the testimony of all the rebels, from Satan
or Prometheus or Mother Eve, t o Jean-Paul Sartre of our
own time.
4. Pessivzisiw, shepticisiw, positivism, etc. Skepticism and
pessimism usually go together: the notion that t h e cosmos
is meaningless is almost certain t o breed the corollary view
that human life is simply an exercise in futility. Positivism
279
 GENESIS
is but a more “sophisticated” form of skepticism: it is the
view that knowledge is to be obtained only from “observ-
able and measurable facts”; negatively, it is the denial of
the validity of faith. Comte, the founder of Positivism
(as a system), who wanted to be remembered as the origi-
nator of what he called “the religion of humanity,’’ was
in and out of mental institutions a t various times. Clarence
Darrow was reported as making the statement that “life
is not worth living”: it is to be noted, however, that he
lived out his own life to its natural end. The arch-
pessimist (and woman-hater ) in the history of philosophy
was Arthur Schopenhauer. For him, the world of events
(phenomena) was objectified will. This universal will, he
affirmed, is simply a blind striving by all living things to
keep themselves in existence, but to no purpose whatever
except “to keep on keeping on.” (Incidentally, Schopen-
hauer was repudiated by his mother in his childhood: the
incident serves to illustrate the fact that pessimism is
usually the by-product of some emotional trauma). This
notion that the world is meaningless, that life is futility,
that we are here just because we are here, has persisted
throughout all human history, becoming especially pro-
nounced in periods of declining morality and morale. It
finds expression in the numerous representations of human
1,ife as but a kind of stage play, a good show, a Vanity
Fair; as schoed and re-echoed in the ancient book of
Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; vanity
of vanities, all is vanity.” (However, it should be noted
that the Preacher’s deep-seated faith asserted itself in a
later passage: see Eccl. 1:2, and 1 2 : 7 ) . (Cf. Christian’s
experience in the town of Vanity Fair on his pilgrimage
to the Celestial City, in Bunyan’s great allegory, Tbc Pil-
grim’s Progress; also the title of Thackeray’s greatest novql,
Vanity Fair). Shakespeare caused the doomed Macbeth
to soliloquize in these well-known words:
280
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
‘Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrowg
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death, Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
(Of course, this does not mean necessarily that the fore-
going verses expressed Shakespeare’s attitude toward life.
As a matter of fact, in his various plays he set forth, always
in exquisite language, .practically all the views of life that
men have ever held or ever could hold). James Thomson,
a third-rate poet of the nineteenth century, echoed the
credo of this Cult of Fertility in these verses:
“The world rolls round for ever like a mill;
It grinds out death and life and good and ill;
It has no purpose, heart or mind or will .. . ¶,

(The City of Dreadful Nighlt)

And about a century ago, Matthew Arnold wrote:
“Most men eddy about
Here and there-eat and drink,
Chatter and love and hate,
Gather and squander, are raised
Aloft, are hurl’d in the dust,
Striving blindly, achieving
Nothing; and then they die.”
(From “Rugby Chapel”)
Was it not Voltaire who dubbed the Earth “the lunatic
asylum of the universe”?
This morbid notion of the meaninglessness of life and
the very futility of living, has dominated both fiction and
drama for the past half-century, and no doubt accounts
28 1
 GENESIS
for the fact that contemporary literature, on the whole,
has very little humor in it. Both writers and their writings
are ponderously earthy, so deadly serious, so intellectually
dense, that there is no climate in which the Comic Spirit
can find a habitation. This Cult of Futility originated
with Ibsen in the drama, and with Thomas Hardy in the
novel. It is either explicit or implicit in the plays of
O”eil1, Arthur Miller, Albee, Tennessee Williams, and
other lesser lights, the playwrights who have dominated
Broadway in recent decades. (Williams has done about
as good a job of out-Freuding Freud as Euripides did
twenty-four hundred years ago). Saturated with the same
motif are the novels of Dreiser, Maugham, Lewis, Stein-
beck, Faulkner, Hemingway, Caldwell, Farrell, James Jones,
Salinger, Mailer and others of like outlook: these are the
authors who have produced most of the fiction with which
the literary markets of the world have been deluged in
our day. (It will be recalled that Cronshaw’s carpet, in
Maugham’s Of H u m a n Bondage, is offered as an explicit
analogy of the purposelessness of life). I suppose, how-
ever, that the last word in pessimism has been spoken by
the self -proclaimed atheistic existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre,
in his tragic confession that for him life is only a vacuum
with “no exit” signs. What a terrible world this would
be if this view were to prevail universally!
To summarize: The literary lights of the first half of
our century are certainly not to be distinguished for even
moderately high moral standards. Their works reek with
obscenity, pornography, homosexuality, sheer human de-
pravity of every kind and description. We are reminded
here of the comment attributed to a n English professor in
one of our universities that most contemporary literature,
including the novel as well as the drama, is either neurotic,
erotic, or tommyrotic. One is reminded also of the title
of an essay by Lin Yutang, published in Saturday Review
not so long ago, “DO American Writers Shun Happiness?”
282
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
J , The Christian accepts the vicissitudes of life as disci-
jlii5ary. As a matter of fact, the difference between the
iiominal Christian and the true Christian is brought to
light a t this point: to the nominal Christian, suffering is
“a savor from death unto death”; to the true Christian
it is “a savor from life unto life” ( 2 Cor. 2:16). Like
the preaching of the Gospel, some persons are hardened
by it, others are moved to the godly sorrow that leads
them to repentance ( 2 Cor. 7 : 1 0 ) . I am reminded of the
mother, a professed church member, who lost her daughter.
The daughter was a brilliant girl and an accomplished
pianist, The mother, in a spirit of rebellion amounting
t o sheer petulance, closed the daughter’s piano, locked it,
and never allowed it to be heard in that home from the
day of her daughter’s death. This woman acted like a
spoiled child: she should have had a spanking. This, how-
ever, in all likelihood would be the nominal Christian’s
reaction to suffering: he would, as Job was importuned
by his wife to do, renounce God and die; that is, realZy
die, by committing spiritual suicide. Not so the true
Christian. He knows that Scripture does not even intimate
t h a t the saints shall be spared the adversities of this world
simply by virtue of their having espoused the Spiritual
Life; hence he does not pray to be relieved of these ad-
versities; rather, he prays for the strength to bear them
when they come. He understands that the rains of God
fall on the just and the unjust alike, that the wheat and
the tares must grow together until the harvest (Matt.
5:4?, 1 3 : 2 4 - 3 0 ) . He remembers always those other
meaningful words of Jesus: “In the world ye have tribula-
tion; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world”
(John 1 6 : 3 3 ) . He understands that if it was necessary
for the Author of his salvation to be made perfect through
sufferings (Heb. Z : I O ) , he too must accept the disciplinary
service of suffering as a necessary means to his attainment
of ultimate holiness ( 2 Cor. 4:16-18, Heb. 1 2 : l - 1 3 ) . He
283
 GENESIS
utilizes adversity to this very end, and so, in the finality
of this temporal life, he achieves the victory of faith that
overcomes the world (1 John 5:4, 2 Tim. 4:6-8). Let all
Christians, therefore, keep in mind these verses by Ella
Wheeler Wilcox, entitled “Gethsemane”:
cc
Down shadowy lanes, across strange streams,
Bridged over by our broken dreams;
Behind the misty cap of years,
Behind the great salt fount of tears,
The garden lies. Strive as you may,
You cannot miss it in your way.
All paths that have been, or shall be,
Pass somewhere through Gethsemane.
“All those who journey, soon or late,
Must pass within the garden’s gate,
Must kneel alone in the darkness there,
And battle with some fierce despair.
God pity those who cannot say,
‘Not mine, but Thine!’-who only pray,
‘Let this cup pass!’-and cannot see
The purpose in Gethsemane.”

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART FOURTEEN

1. List the dogmas included in theological jargon about
the Fall.
2. Distinguish between a doctrine and a dogma.
3. State the dogma of “original sin.”
4. State the Bible definition of sin, and state where it is
found.
5 . In what Scripture do we find the doctrine of the
cmsequences of sin? What is the substance of this
doctrine?
6 . In what Scripture do we find the doctrine of the guilt
of sin? State the substance of this doctrine.
284
 THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL
7, Does the Bible teach anywhere the notion of ifiberite’ea!
gdlG?
8, Explain what is meant by the statement t h a t sin is
personal.
9 . Give t h e substance of Dorothy L, Sayers’ discussion
of moral law, emphasizing the distinction between
moral law and moral code.
IO. Do consequences ever imply inherited guilt?
11, Explain what Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice accomplished
u ~ ~ c o i z d i t i o ~ ~and
a l l ~for
i , whom? And what it accom-
plished co?zditioTrally,and for whom?
12. Summarize Dr. Brents’ analysis of “inherited weak-
ness” in man.
13, Summarize Campbell’s statements on human depravity,
14. What relations do you see between immaturity, irra-
tionality, and depravity?
15. State Aristotle’s analysis of man.
16. What has always been man’s predominant sin?
17. Is there any such thing intimated in Scripture as sin
or salvation by proxy or en masse?
18. State the theological dogma of “infant damnation.”
19. How did so-called “infant baptism” originate?
20, Just what is de facto infant baptism?
21. Show why these doctrines and practices are unscrip-
tural.
22. State the Scriptures usually cited to support the dogma
of “original sin,” and point out the fallacies in these
interpretations.
23. Explain why guilt can be the result only of a personal
and voluntary act.
24. Is “congenital depravity” in any sense the same as
inherited guilt?
25. Explain the Apostle’s teaching in t h e fifth chapter of
Romans, and in 1 Cor. 1?:20-23, relative t o the fall
of Adam and the corresponding recovery in Christ.
28 5
 GENESIS
2 6 . How is the Kingdom of Christ evidently more in-
clusive than the Church of Christ? .
27. I n what way specifically is sin necessarily incurred?
28. Explain the Calvinistic dogma of “total depravity.”
29. According t o Scripture, what creatures only are totally
depraved?
30. List and explain the Scriptures which refute the dogma
of the total depravity of man.
3 1 . What bearing has the Parable of the Soils on this
problem?
3 2. Explain the dogma of “miraculous conversion.”
3 3 . Explain Ephesians 2 : 8.
34. Explain the dogma of “unconditional election and
reprobation.”
3 J . What is declared in Scripture to be the power of God
unto salvation to all who believe?
36. How, according to Scripture, are persons made be-
lievers?
37. In view of the fact that God has sent us the letter,
so to speak, to tell us what to do to be saved, is it
reasonable t o expect him to follow up with a telegram
to convince us that He meant what He has said in
the letter?
3 8 . Give examples to show how Divine election is election
t o res# tmsibilities,
39. Distinguish the etymology of the word “foreordain”
from that of the word “predestine” or “predestinate.”
40. Explain Rom. 9:12-13, Rom. 9:17-18, Rom. 9:20-24,
Acts 13:48, Rom. 8:28-30, in relation to the dogma
of “unconditional election and reprobation.”
41. Explain the Apostle’s teaching in the ninth, tenth,
and eleventh chapters of Romans with reference to the
Scripture doctrine of Divine election.
42. Explain what is meant by the statement that fore-
ordination and election have reference to the plan
and not to the man, to the class and not to the in-
286
 T H E NARRATIVE OF T H E FALL
dividual. What Plan is indicated here? What class
is indicated?
43, On what ground do we today adjudge the Divine
election of Jacob over Esau to have been the right
choice?
44, Discuss thoroughly the doctrine of predestination in
relation to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus.
4J. State Maritain’s explanation of this problem,
46. Is it necessarily true t h a t Divine omniscience iiicludes
Divine foreknowledge of all events both cosmic and
personal? Explain your answer.
47. If man is predestined t o be free, what does Divine
foreknowledge include.
48. Is it necessarily true that Divine foreknowledge pre-
supposes Divine foreordination? Explain your answer.
49. Give Augustine’s explanation of the relation of Divine
foreordination to human freedom.
50. How did Thomas Aquinas deal with this problem? .--
5 1. What was the explanation suggested by William
James?
52. State the views of Kant and of John Locke on the
question of human freedom of will.
53. How does Max Planck, the physicist, deal with this
problem?
5 4. What does Freud have to say about i t ?
5 5 . How do the Existentialists deal with i t ?
5 6. Give Maritain’s resolution of the problem in relation
to the corollary problem of time.
5 7. Show how conversion is presented in Scripture as a
psychological process rather than a .mystical process.
5 8. What is the dogma of “final perseverance”?
59. List the Scriptures usually cited to support this dogma,
and point out the interpretative fallacy in each case.
GO. Cite the important Scripture passages which assert, or
a t least intimate, the possibility of falling away.
287
 GENESIS
61. Cite the Scriptures which either affirm or intimate
that spiritual life and growth are contingent on sted-
fast discipleship.
62. Explain: “The grace of God is indispensable, but is not
irresistible.”
63. What was the twofold problem before the Divine
government in respect to man’s temptation and fall?
64. Show how the Vicarious Atonement provided by the
Son of God was designed to resolve this problem.
65. Explain what is meant by remission, justification,
sanctification, glorification, and redemption.
66. Explain what is meant by the Beatific Vision.
67. State and discuss some od the more common human
attitudes toward physical evil in its various forms.
68. What is the over-all motif which seems to permeate
the literature of our day and time? Give examples.
69. Explain what is meant by the Cult of Futility.
70. What is the attitude of the true Christian toward the
fact of physical evil in its various forms?

288
 PART FIFTEEN:
GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
111 this section we shall treat as briefly as possible t h e
Biblical doctrine of foreordination, That there is such a
doctrine in Scripture is evident from numerous passages,
We shall examine the doctrine under the following
captions:
1. The God o f the Bible is puriioseful, t h a t is, 1 3 s activ-
ity in Creation, Providence, and Redemption, is directed
toward specific ends (Isa. 46:8-11, Jer. 4:28, 1 Cor. 15:2O-
28, Phil. 2 : 5 - l l ) , Hence the profound meaning of the
oft-repeated term, “the living God,” the God whose esseiice
i s existence (being) aizd whose beiiig is activity: in short,
He is the God who has only to will a thing to be done and
it is done (Psa. 33:6, 9; Psa. 148:5; John 4:24; Matt.
16:16; Luke 7:6-10; Acts 17:24-29; Heb. 11:3).
2. God’s purpose with impect t o H i s f h a t i o n is specifi-
cally desigvated His Eferiinl Purpose, that is, (1) existing
‘from everlasting to everlasting” (Psa. 90:2, Jer. 10: 10,
h a . 9:6, John 3:16, Rev. 14:6, etc.), and (2) timeless in
its origin and consummation (Exo. 3 : 1 4 ) . This Eternal
Purpose, we are told, includes the following: to send forth
His Only Begotten, in the fulness of t h e time (Gal. 4:4;
John 1:14, 3:16; John 17:5, 24), to make Atonement
(Covering) for the sin of the world (Isa. 53 :4, 11 ; John
1:29; 1 Pet. 2:21-25; 1 Cor. l j : 3 ; Heb. 9 : 2 8 ) , to publish
the Gospel and t o unite Jews and Gentiles in the one Body
of Christ (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Eph. 2 : l l - 2 2 ,
3:3-12; Gal. 3:26-29; 1 Cor. 12:13). The ultimate end
of this Divine activity is the conquest of evil in all its
forms, t h e segregation of Satan and his kind in Hell (Matt.
25:41; 2 Pet. 2:4; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Rev., ch. 2 0 ) , and the
establishment of the saints, all clothed in glory and honor
and incorruption (immortality, Rom. 2 : 6-7) , in the (‘new
heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness’’
(2 Pet, 3:8-13; Rev., chs. 21, 2 2 ) : “ t h a t what is mortal
2 89
 GENESIS
may be swallowed up of life” ( 2 Cor. 5 : 4 ) . All this is
embraced in a single phrase: “to sum up all things in
Christ” (Eph. 1:9-11, Phil. 2:5-11, 1 Cor. 15:ZO-28).
3. This Eternal Purpose is frequently described in Scrip-
t u r e as t h e Divine “mystery.” Note the phrases, “the
mystery of his will” (Eph. 1:9), “the mystery of the
faith” (1 Tim. 3 : 9 ) , “the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3 :4),
“the mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19). This is said to
be the “mystery which hath been kept in silence through
times eternal,’ (Rom. 16:25-27), “which hath been hid
from ages and generations” (Col. 1:26-27) ; the mystery
which “in other generations was not made known unto
the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy
apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Eph. 3 : l - 7 ) , which
was concealed in the testimony of the prophets of old and,
in the fulness of time, was announced by those who
preached the Gospel “by the Holy Spirit sent forth from
heaven,” the mystery which angels have sought to look
into from age t o age, and from generation to generation
(1 Pet. I:IO-IZ, 2 Pet. 1:19-21); the mystery “which
God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory” (1
Cor. 2:7), “foreordained according to the purpose of him
who worketh all things after the counsel of his will”
(Eph. 1 : l l ) . Contrary to a popular notion, the Bible
is not a mystery; rather, its content is the revelation of
the mystery “which hath been kept in silence through times
eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of
the prophets, according to the commandment of the eter-
nal God, is made known unto all the nations unto ob2dience
of faith” (Rorn. 16:25-27; Matt. 13:34-35, 24:14, 28:18-
20; Psa. 78:2).
4. This Divine Mystery, this Eternal Purpose, necevsarily
includes all that God has foreordained with respect to His
moral Creation, both angels and m e n , as follows:
(1) Man’s nature as a spirit-body (or mind-body psy-
chosomatic) u n i t y . Man was predestined, by virtue of his
290
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
nature, to be free (within certain limits already pointed
o u t ) , Cf. Gen. 2:7, 1:26-28, 2:16-17 (note: “thou inayest
freel3) eat,” with the sole exception of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil), Psa, 8 ; Psa. 148:106; Job
32:8, 33:4; Psa. 139:14, etc.
( 2 ) The esseiitials of the Plav of Redeiizptio??. Hence,
we read that froitz the f o d a t i o n of the world: (a) the
Son of God, our Passover, was the Lamb slain to make
Atonement for sin (John 1:29, 17:5, 24; Isa. 53:7; Acts
8:32; 1 Cor, f:7; Heb. 9:13-14; 1 Pet. 1:18-20; Rev. J:6,
6 : l ; cf. Exo. 12:43-47, Num. 9:ll-12, Psa. 34:20, John
19:36) ; (b) the elect of God are chosen i?z Him (Eph,
1:4; cf. Rom. 8:1, 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 3:26-28); ( c ) their
names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev, 13:8,
17:8) ; (d) His Kingdom is prepared for them, that is, for
all who live and die if?Christ (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 14:13;
Luke 12:32; 1 Cor. 6:9, 15:24; Gal. 5:21, Jas. 2:5). All
these matters, including also the breaking down of the
middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and the
inclusion of both alike, on the terms of the New Covenant,
in the Body of Christ (Eph. 3 :3-7, 2 :11-22; 1 Cor. 12: 13 ;
Acts 10:44-48, 11:15-18, 15:7-11), and the twofold mis-
sion of t h e Church, that of preserving the truth of the
Gospel and that of proclaiming it to all people (Eph.
3:8-12; 1 Tim. 3:14-15; Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:18-20, 24:14),
are included in God’s Eternal Purpose and hence determined
from before the foundation of the world.
(3) The Privilege of adoptioii i?iio the Household of
the Faith (Eph. 1 : J ; Gal. k 3 - 7 , 6:lO; Rom. 8:14-17).
The Spirit, through the Word, tells us what to do to be
saved (Acts 16:31, 2:38; Matt. 10:32-33; Rom. 6:3-7,
1019-10; Gal. 3 :27, etc.) , and our spirits tell us that we
have complied with these conditions (“the keys of the
kingdom of heaven,” Matt. 16: 19) ; hence, God’s Spirit
and our spirits testify to the same fact, namely, that we
are children of God by adoption. Jesus is the Only Be-
29 l
 GENESIS
gotten of God, God’s Son by Divine begetting and birth
(Luke 1 : 3 5 ; Matt. 16:16; John 3:16, 20:30-31; Gal 4:4;
1 John 5:9-12). This privilege of adoption, of becoming
heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, sons and daugh-
ters of the Heavenly Father (2 Cor. 6:17-18), is likewise a
fundamental part of God’s Eternal Purpose, in order that
“unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places”
(angels, as well as men) “might be made known through
the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10-12,
cf. Eph. 6 ~ 2 ) .
(4) The ultimate glorification of His saints (the Re-
deemed). Note again Rom. 8:28-30. Here the correla-
tion of the doctrine of God’s Eternal Purpose with that of
foreordination is clearly set forth. Here we read that ( a )
all souls whom God foreknew to be of His elect, He fore-
ordains-to what end? “To be conformed to the image
of Mis Son,” etc.; ( b ) all whom He so foreordained, them
He also called (Le., in His Eternal Purpose) ; ( c ) whom
He called, them He also justified (again, in His Eternal
Purpose) ; (d) and whom He justified, them He also
glorified (in His Eternal Purpose). To be ccglorified,y’
according to New Testament teaching, is to be clothed in
“glory and honor and incorruption” (Rom. 2 : 7 ) . Glorifi-
cation is the ultimate redemption of the body from the
consequences of sin, in the putting on of immortality ( 2
Tim. 1:10, 2:10; 1 Cor. 15:39-44; 2 Cor. 5 : 4 ) . To be
thus immortalized is to be conformed to the image of God’s
Son, who, as “the firstfruits of them that are asleep,” the
firstborn from the dead (1 Cor. 15:20, 23; Acts 26:23;
1 Cor. 15:45-49; Col. 1 : l S ; cf. Matt. 17:l-2, John 7 : 3 9 ) ,
was the first to be raised to immortality (1 Tim. 1:17,
6 : 13-16; 1 Cor. 15:20-26). Immortalization-the redemp-
tion of the body from mortality itself (Rom. 8:23, 2 Cor.
5 :4)-is, in Christian teaching, one of the phases of eternal
life (Rom. 2:7, 6:23, 8 : 1 1 , 8:23; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Cor.
5:I-IO; 1 Cor. 1 5 3 3 5 - 5 8 ) . It should be understood that
292
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
redemption of the body is promised only to the righteous;
tlie Scriptures give us no information as to the kind of
“body” the lost will inhabit in Hell.
S w e l y we must coiicludc from all this Scriptirre teach-
iug t h a t Redeiiijtioii ( I Tbess, ? :23) is the c o i i s m m a t i i i g
phase of God’s Cosmic Plan, i.e., His Etcriial Pirrfiose; t h a t
Creatioii will have beeri fiilly actiralized o i i l ~whcii~ God’s
elect staiid in the J v d g i i i c i i t clothed in glory and bofior
aiid i?iiiiiortality.
The practical question involved here is this: How does
God call those whovz He foreknows t o be His elect?
(Naturally, these are called as indiuididals; Christian doc-
trine knows no such thing as salvation either by proxy or
e n 71zasse.) (a) By a direct operation of the Spirit on the
sinner’s “heart,” iiidepeiideiit of the Word? Evidently not.
Both Scripture and experience confirm the fact that where
there is no contact with the Gospel message either by
reading it or by hearing it, there is no faith, no conversion,
no election (Rom. 10:14-17, 1 Cor, 1:Zl). (b) By a
special mystical operation of the Spirit on the sinner’s
“heart” in addition to t b e Word? Obviously n o t , for this
would mean either t h a t God is a respecter of persons
(which He is n o t ) , or that He will finally save all human-
ity (which is equally contrary to Scripture teaching) .
(Cf. Joliii 5:26-29, Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-11, Acts
10:34-35, Rev., chs. 20, 21, 2 2 ) . ( c ) Hence, we must
conclude t h a t God calls men individually through His
Word, either as printed (stereotyped), or as proclaimed
by faithful men (2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Tim. 1:13,
2 : 2 ; Heb. 9 : l l ; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rom. 10:6-17); t h a t the
Spirit operates through the Word (or through by-products
of the Word, such as hymns, Gospel songs, doctrinal
tracts, and especially tlie exemplary lives of the saints,
Matt. f : 16, 2 Cor. 3 :1-3 ) in the conversion, regeneration,
and sanctification of the elect (1 Pet. 1:23, 1 Cor. 4:15,
Gal. 4:19). (1 Thess. 1:4-5, Here t h e Apostle refers to
293
 GENESIS
the charismata by which the Gospel was confirmed in the
apostolic age (Acts 2:22, Rom. 1:11, Heb. 2:4, 1 Cor.
12 :4-11) , not to so-called “miraculous conversions.” In
the plan of God. demonstration always accompanies reve-
lation (Exo. 4:l-9, John 11:41-42, Mark 16:20). (d)
Rom. 1:16. Note that the Gospel is the power, not just
Q power or oue of the powers, of God unto salvation; it is
such because the Spirit operates through it (Luke 8:11,
1 Pet. 1322-25); note also that it is God’s power unto
salvation to just one class: “everyone that believeth.” To
those who believe its facts and obey its commands (1 Cor.
15:1-4; Rom. 2:8, 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:s; 1 Pet. 3:1, 4:17),
it is the power of God unto salvation, but to those who
ignore it or reject it, it is the power of God unto eternal
condemnation (John 5:40, Eph. 6:17, Heb. 4:12). To
summarize: the called, justified, sanctified, and glorified
souls (in God’s Eternal Purpose) make up that company
of persons who accept the Gospel call and continue stead-
fastly in the faith (Rom. 12:l-2; 1 Cor. 1S:SS; 2 Pet.
1:5-8, 3:18; Jude 3 ; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, etc.): these are
God’s elect: the “whosoever wills’’ (Rev. 22: 17, John 5 :40,
Matt. 23:37),
The prerequisite of ultimate Union with God in knowl-
edge and in love, in the Hereafter, is the Life with the
Spirii in the here and now (1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19-20;
Rom. 5 : 5 , 8 : l l ; Eph. 1:13-14, 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; Rev.
7 ) . The prerequisite of the Spiritual Life here is Union
with Christ, and this, in turn is attained through faith,
repentance, confession, and baptism into Christ (John
3:16, 3 : l ; John 20:30-31; Luke 13:3; Matt. 10:32-33;
Acts 2:38, 16:31, 8:36-39, 9:18, 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Col.
2:12; Gal. 3:27, etc.). We repeat, for the sake of empha-
sis, that all persons who accept the Gospel call and commit
themselves to the life that is hid with Christ in God (Col.
3 : 3 ) , are predestined, ordained (disposed) to eternal life
(Acts 1 3 :48), foreordained to ultimate glorification, re-
294
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
dccmed in spirit and soul and body (1 Thess, 5 : 2 3 ) , con-
formed to the image of God’s Son (I John 3 :1 - 2 ) . This
class is the company of God’s elect. Foreordination OL
predestination in Scripture refers to the class, not to the
individwal, to the plan, not to the maii. Let us never for
get, too, that Divine election is election to responsibilities
as well as to benefits and privileges.
5, Finally, We must not omit calling attention to the
fact that the Processes a i d “laws” of the physical world
are also “foreordained.” Why do men suppose that thc
more law that is discovered as descriptive of the processes
going on in the physical realm means “the less God.” As
a matter of fact, the more law presupposes “the more
God.” Law is the expression of the will of the lawgiver!
this is true of any kind or code of law. Therefore, the
cosmic laws, generally designated the “laws of nature,”
must be the ordinations-and in a sense the foreordina-
tions-of the Will of the Universal Lawgiver. His will is
’indeed the constitution of the whole Creation, both physi-
cal and mortal, that which constitutes it to be what it is.
(Psa. 33:6, 9 ; Psa. 148:l-6; Acts 17:24-28; Acts. 1 4 : l J ;
h a . 42:Y; Heb. 1:1-3). Science, in its very use of the
word “law,” pays tribute, either wittingly or unwittingly,
to the Divine Lawgiver. It must be remembered that
science borrowed this word from jurisprudence, not juris-
prudence from science.
* * * * *
ADDITIONAL INTERESTING COMMENTS
Human wisdom has never been able to produce any-
thing like a satisfactory account of the origin of evil. In
view of the fact that sin is transgression of the Divine
law, and t h a t only the Divine Lawgiver can give u s th.:
facts in the case, the failure of human philosophy to solve
the problem is not to be wondered a t . (Incidentally, it
should be understood that philosophy i s of b w n a n origin
29 5
 GENESIS
strictly: it is a t best but hu?nan speculation, which can,
and often does, give us interesting clues to the understand-
ing of the mystery of the cosmos and of man’s life in it.)
This whole problem of evil, which is in fact the problem
of good and evil, is not a question of philosophy, but of
revelation.
H. C. Christopher, in his book, The Remedial System,
one of the most interesting books I have ever read, and
which unfortunately has long been out of print, has
written of the account of the origin of evil on earth in
relation to the pre-mundane rebellion of Satan and his
rebel angels, as follows (RS, 45-46): “That the treatment
of sin through the Remedial System has a bearing on the
question of sin among angels; that the management of this
great evil through an atonement, is really and truly a
complete and satisfactory solution of the problem of sin
in the abstract-as related to both men and angels-is the
almost positive and emphatic declaration of the inspired
Apostle, when speaking on this subject. Regarding the
Remedial System as having an important connection with,
and a bearing, in the purposes of God, on the occurrence
of sin among angels, he alludes to the connection which
the Atonement has with the Principalities and Powers in
the heavens, in the following direct and glowing state-
ment: ‘To me who am less than the least of all saints is
this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles
the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see
what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the
beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created
all things by Jesus Christ: to the intent (v. l o ) that now
unto the Principalities and Powers in heavenly places [Col.
1:16] might be made known by the church the manifold
wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which
he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord,’ Eph. 3 : 8 - 1 1 . A
logical connection obtaining between the eruption of sin
in the heavens, and the Remedial System in this world, and
296
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
the latter following the former in the order of time, it is
fair to presume that the occurrence of sin among angels
was the logical cause of the purpose to establish a Remedial
System for men, and this the necessary cause of the crea-
tion of the world with all that belongs to it, both celestial
and terrestrial; for, without man, the Remedial System
could have no existence, and without the material and
organic worlds man could not exist. There is, therefore,
a logical and necessary connection between the occurrence
of sin among angels and the creation of the material and
organic worlds.’’
Again, with reference to this connection between the
apostasy of angels and the Remedial System, Christopher
has written: “The reason for this connection has its founda-
tion in the f a c t that the occurrence of sin and the terrible
disaster which it brought on angels, gave rise to a problem
t h e importance, grandeur, and magnitude of which have
no parallel in the domain of God, which problem, finding
no possible solution among angels, made absolutely neces-
sary the creation of another order of spirit-beings whose
nature and condition under sin would allow a Remedial
System, and afford the necessary data for the solution of
the problem. The nature of this new order of spirit-
beings allied them, on one side of their being, to the angels
among whom sin had originated, and on the other, t o
the material and organic worlds of which they were, as
to their organism, a part, and out of which arose their
peculiar condition under sin. I t was essentially necessary
that they should be so closely allied to angels as to be
virtuully the same as to their spirit, in order that every
circumstance and condition necessary to the solution might
be present, so that the solution, effected through the new
order of beings, might be regarded as a true and satis-
factory determination of the question as it pertained to
angels. It was equally necessary, on the other hand, that
the new order of beings should differ from angels in such
297
 GENESIS
respect as to permit the necessary conditions to exist, on
which should be grounded the possibility of a Remedial
System. This difference is found in the pecularities of
their being, which connect them with the material and
organic worlds, and constitute them a new order of beings.
This difference is seen to exist in the fact that men, after
the first pair, are derived beings,” that is, by the process
of what is called “natural generation.”
I have included these excerpts from Christopher’s book
for what they may be worth to the student in his study
of the problem of evil. (The book itself came under my
observations for just a few weeks almost fifty years ago.
I have never succeeded in finding a copy since that time,
and I consider myself fortunate to have preserved the
excerpts presented above-C.C.)
To say the least, Christopher’s argument is intriguing.
We might well ask: If the essential principle of love is
sacrifice, as indeed it must be, then just where, when and
how could ineffable Divine Love have been demonstrated
ful1.y other thai2 in a world of lost sinners? And how could
it have been demonstrated more effectively than it was
demonstrated by the Supreme Sacrifice of God’s Only
Begotten, on the Cross of Calvary? (John 3:16-17, 1:29,
19:30; 1 John, ch. 4). It might be suggested, too, that as
far as we know from Divine revelation, God had not
manifested aught but His “everlasting power and divinity”
(Rom. 1:20), prior to the angelic apostasy of Lucifer and
his rebel host. All of these matters are, of course, facets
of that profound, and indeed at its core unfathomable,
“mystery of lawlessness,’’ of which the Apostle writes in
Second Thessalonians, chapter 2. The Christian must
always keep in mind the fact that the secret things belong
to God, t h a t only the things that are revealed belong to
us and to our children for ever (Deut. 29:29). H e under-
stands, therefore, that he must walk by faith, until t h a t
ultimate Day of Illumination (of the Beatific Vision) when
298
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
h e shall be privileged to %now fully even as also he was
fully known” (1 Cor, 13:ll-12). Man must never seek
to pry too deeply into the mysteries of the Divine Will
(Job. 11:7, 41:l-11, 42:l-6; Rom. 11:33-36).
This final word from the pen of D, El.ton Trueblood
(PR, 250) is fitting a t this point: “If the possibility of
goodness involves choice, it also involves the possibility of
evil; and, if the possibility is genuine, i t will sometimes be
realized, Therefore, the conditions of the occurrence of
evil are identical with the conditions of the higher aspects
of the moral life. It cannot be said that God directly wills
sin or evil desire, because it is not necessary that we sin.
The sin is our fault, not God’s, though God made us so
t h a t we might sin, because otherwise the best in life could
not be. , , . Here we have the abiding Christian paradox
of sin. We are to blame for it, but we cannot heal it.
God did not cause it, but He can forgive and overcome
it. Heresy has come from supposing either (a) the power
to cause implies the power to overcome, or (b) the power
to overcome implies responsibility for sin’s existence, i.e.,
heresy comes from any denial of the paradox.” Trueblood
quotes Lancelot Andrewes as saying in his private prayer:
“Two things I recognize, 0 Lord, in myself:
nature, which Thou hast made;
sin, which I have added:
I confess that by sin I have depraved nature;
but call to remembrance, that I am a
wind that passeth away,
and returneth not again;
for of myself I cannot return again from sin.
Take away from me that which I have made;
let that which Thou hast made remain in me.”
and then comments pointedly: “Perhaps the problem is
easier to solve devotionally than philosophically.”
:+ ,I. * + #.

299
 GENESIS
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
True Morality
We have heard so much in recent months about ethical
positivism, ethical relativism, ethical nihilism, “situationist
ethics,” the “traditional” morality, the “new” morality,
etc., that there is little wonder that confusion in regard to
the moral life is world-wide. The thesis of the most radical
of these systems is well expressed by Jim Casey, in Stein-
beck’s Grapes of Vrath: “There ain’t no sin, there ain’t
no virtue-there’s just stuff people do.” We suppose to
discuss here the true morality-the only morality that will
properly undergird social order as well as provide for
ultimate attainment of the Life Everlasting.
A great many persons believe, and have long believed,
that man is now in an unnatural state. Believing that he
once enjoyed the personal favor of God and fellowship with
Him, and that such favor and communion were lost by
transgression, with the attendant consequences of sin, sick-
ness and death over the entire earth, to the loss of those
original privileges theologians have applied the term,
“Fall.” It has become fashionable, however, of late, t o
deny the facts reported by Moses in regard to man’s
Edenic relation with Yahweh. Again quoting from Chris-
topher (RS, 8 3 ) : “There are some men who, pretending
to believe in the Bible as a revelation from God, do yet,
indeed, deny many of the-most important facts recorded
in it. . . . They deny that man was ever in a state higher,
or different from that in which we now find him; and
say that the story of the Fall is a myth, and the existence
of sin the creature of a superstitious imagination. Hence
they do not believe that the actions of men have a sinfu!
character. Crime, with these men, is only an offense
against the rights of society or of individuals, not a sin
against God. They do not, indeed, deny that the actions
of men have a moral character. This they cannot deny.
3 00
 GENESIS
But morality with them has reference only to m e n , none
whatever to God. In denying the existence of sjv, they
of course deny that the actions of men have a siuful
character, however criminal the actions may be. They
look upon criminal actions as no more than simple viola-
tions of moral laws, which men have wrought out and
ordained for the government of men.” Indeed there are
many, many individuals, and even nations, in our day, who
repudiate morality altogether: for vzoralify they substitute
expediency. There are many, too, who would eliminate
sin from human thought and life by the employment of
psychiatric and psycho-analytic devices calculated t o re-
move the sense of guilt. And yet, if press releases are t o be
relied on, this is an age in which pride, ambition, greed,
lust, violence, cruelty, facism, war, and every iniquity
known to man, are rampant over the whole earth. Indeed
t h e Biblical description of the state of things in the ante-
diluvian age might well be used to picture our present
world: “And the earth was corrupt before God, and the
earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6 : l l ; cf. Matt.
24:37-42).
As usual, the error in this kind of thinking (the “new”
morality) lies in the false premise from which it originates,
namely, the vacauiiig of morality. Morality is described
as “conformity to a prescribed rule of conduct,” or “con-
formity to the rule of right.” Who, then, has prescribed
the rule of conduct for man? T o whom shall we go for
the rule of right? There is but one answer that will stand
the test: we m~stgo to God, the Source of perfect wisdom.
perfect love, and perfect justice. Every rule of right that
mankind has knowledge of has its source in the Will of
God. This is precisely what the Apostle means when he
says, “Is the law sin? God forbid, Howbeit, I had not
known sin, except through the law: for I had not known
coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet”
(Rom. 7 : i ’ ) . M o r d i f y , therefore, in its highest sense, is
301
 GENESIS
conformity t o God’s prescribed rule of conduct. For many
centuries, this rule of conduct existed only in tradition;
later, because of the transgressions of the race, it was
embodied in negative form in the Mosaic Code, which was
especially adapted to the Dispensation in which it was first
revealed (Gal. 3: 19). Later, with the advent and teaching
of Messiah and His Apostles, this rule of right was put in
positive form in “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:251,
Christianity is this “perfect law of liberty,” “the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2). Christian-
ity came to abrogate and to supersede the law of Moses
(John 1:17, Gal. 3:24-25, Col. 2:14-16, Matt. 5:17-18).
(The Christian System-the New Testament-incorporates
all the moral principles of the Old; hence they are binding
on Christians, not because they are in the Old, but because
they have been re-enacted in the New. The sole exception
is the law of the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a memorial
of the deliverance of ancient Israel from Egyptian bond-
age, and hence has no meaning for Gentiles. All Christian
assemblies, from the very beginnings of the Church, are
held on the Lord’s Day. EExo. 2O:l-17; Deut. 5:12-15;
Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:lO; Acts 14:15, 17:24;
Eph. 4:6; 1 John 5:21; Matt. 5:34; 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 6:18,
5:9; Rom. 1:26-27; 2 Cor, 12:20-21; Gal. 5:19-21; Col.
3:5; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Eph. 4:28, 4:25, 5:3; Col. 3:5; Luke
12:15; 1 Cor. 5 : l l ; Rom. 13:l-10; 1 John 2:9, 3:15,
4:20. Cf. Matt, 8:5-13, Luke 7:2-10, Mark 15:39, Acts
IO:, Acts 10: 1-8, etc.]. Surely these passages prove
that a soldier can be a Christian. I find no absolute
pacifism in the Bible.) Morality is, therefore, conformity
to the rule of conduct prescribed in the teaching of Christ
and His Apostles, as given us in the New Testament, and
includes all of man’s duties to God, to his neighbor, and
t o himself. He who conforms t o the Will of Christ is
moral; he who does not is, to the extent t h a t he does not,
imm;~rnl. Jesus said “Love your enemies, and pray for
3 02
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
them t h a t persecute you” (Matt, 5 : 4 4 ) . He who con-
forms t o this law is moral; he who refuses to do so is
immoral. Jesus commands us to be baptized (buried with
Him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life:
Matt. 3:1Y, 28:19, John 3:3-Y, Rom. 6 : l - 1 1 ) . He who
conforms to the Will of Christ in this matter, in obedience
to this Divine ordinance, is moral; h e who refuses to do
so, is immoral. Morality is far more comprehensive than
the totality of one’s duties to his fellows: it comprehends
our attitude toward, and our treatment of, God. (Matt.
22:34-40), A crime is such with respect only to man’s
(positive) laws; but with respect to the (natural) law of
God, it is sir7 ( 1 John 3 :4), Viewed in this light, it is an
indisputable fact that man has fallen: sin and crime exist
on every hand, throughout the whole world. What, then,
is the distinction between nzorality and religion? Is there
any such distinction, in reality? What is religion, after
all, but conformity to the Will of God, the obedience of
love for God? What is morality, in the true sense of the
term, but conformity to the Will of God, the obedience
of love for God? The sum total of Biblical religion is
expressed in the word obedience, not the obedience of
craven fear, not the obedience that envisions mere status
(respectability) as a result, but the obedience that is ren-
dered out of one’s Jure love for God. (John 1 4 : 1 J ,
1 J : I O ) . There will be just two classes in the Judgment:
those who have done, and those who have iiot done God’s
Will as revealed in Christ Jesus (Matt, 7:24-27, Heb. $ : 9 ,
Rev. 2 2 : 1 4 ) .
* * * * *
The Death of D e a t h
1 . According t o Biblical teaching life and death are the
two Sz~preiiae Universals. Moreover, where there is life,
there is bound to be death. Gen. 3:19, J:J, etc.; Rom.
3:23, 5:12-13, 6:23; John 8:44; Heb. 2 : 1 4 - 1 $ , 9:27; Jas.
303
 GENESIS
1:13-15, etc. (Read the Phaedo of Plato, for the Socratic
argument for survival on the ground of the doctrine of the
opposites).
2. Death as man’s last and bitterest enemy. ( 1 ) All
available evidence proves that from the beginning of his
existence on earth, man has been haunted by the specter
of death, and especially by the fact of the inevitability
of death. One cannot live this temporal life without
becoming poignantly aware of its brevity (Jas. 4:14; Job
7:7; Psa. 39:4-5, 102:3, 144:4), nor can few reach the
cceventide’’ without becoming sorely grieved by its in-
completeness, the sense of more yet to be done which in
fact will never be done. The brute lives out its life cycle
and dies, apparently without any thought of its origin,
nature, or destiny. But man finds it impossible to face
the inevitable with sheer unconcern: in his experience,
death is the ultimate frustration, Nor does “whistling in
the dark” serve to alleviate this deep-seated “tragic sense
of life,” which is born of the horror of facing death. He
may cultivate an outward show of bravado (chest-thump-
i n s ) , when in reality he is internally quaking with fear.
Even men of faith-God’s saints-find it difficult to avoid
the sense of mystery in which death is enshrouded. ( 2 )
Literature, of course, is saturated with evidence of this
deep-seated concern about man’s destiny. For example,
Homer, in the ZZhd (Bk. VI) causes Glaukos to say to
Diomedes on the field of battle: “Even as are the genera-
tions of leaves such are those likewise of men; the leaves
that be, the wind scattereth on the earth, and the forest
buddeth and putteth forth more again, when the season of
spring is at hand; so of the generations of men, one putteth
forth and another ceaseth’’ (cf. Psa. 103:lJ-16, 1 Pet.
1:24-25). In one of Ellery Queen’s mystery stories, Dr.
Dodd, a physician, states the case eloquent1,y as follows:
“I don’t need watching, Mr. Queen. I’m to die and it
won’t be a hand that does it. Some things you can’t do a
3 04
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
biopsy on. With all our sulfas and atomic bombs and
electronic microscopes and two-hundred-inch telescope
lenses we don’t begin to know the powers that fill the
universe. Any more than the amoeba in that glass of
water knows what’s going on in this room. All we can
do is wait and try not to be afraid.” I repeat Simpson here
(IB, 512, 513) as follows: “From the fear of death, man
cannot escape. For in the depths of his soul he knows that
the structure of relationships which he has erected to pro-
tect himself is fundamentally without substance. In the
end it will crumble and he will be compelled to face the
fact which he has always tried t o deny-that he is man
and not God. Man’s disordered relationships and his fear
of death are inextricably bound u p together, the conse-
quence of his alienation from God.” (3) Cassirer writes
(EOM, 83-84) : “In primitive thought death is never re-
garded as a natural phenomenon that obeys general laws.
Its occurrence is not necessary but accidental. It always
depends upon individual and fortuitous causes. It is the
work of witchcraft or magic or some other personal inimi-
cal influence. . . , The conception that man is mortal,
by his nature and essence, seems to be entirely alien to
mythical and primitive religious thought.” Primitive man’s
magic was, of course, designed t o stave off death, even
when it was employed to preserve life. (4) Mythological
translations, quasi-resurrections, transfigurations (meta-
morphoses), etc., as, for example, of Attis, Adonis, Or-
pheus, Mithras, Osiris, Krishna, Ganymede, Narcissus,
etc., offered no promise, not even the slightest ground for
hope, of the conquest of death. These were all discrete
events, subject to the whims of the polytheistic gods and
goddesses, and were usually ritual aspects, wholly without
ethical significance, of the Cult of Fertility which flour-
ished throughout the ancient pagan world. There is not
t h e slightest intimation, in any of these fantastic tales, of
such ideas as the resurrection and glorification of righteous
305
 GENESIS
souls, or the operation of the Holy Spirit in actualizing
such ends (cf. Rom. 8:11), much less the slightest intima-
tion of the conquest of death itself (cf. 1 Cor. 15325-26).
To t r y to equate the Christian doctrine of the Resurrec-
tion with these mythological fictions is sheer blasphemy.
The primary design of the ancient Cult of Fertility was to
enhance the fertility of the soil and so preserve man from
death as long as possible. The ancient Cult of the Dead
sought to achieve the same ends by necromancy, sorcery,
consulting with “familiar spirits,” augury, witchcraft,
divination, diabolism, etc. Many of these practices were
geared especially to foretelling the future. But, as some-
one has rightly said, “no one tries to foretell the future
who doesn’t have the frantic hope that somehow he can
forestall it.” ( 5 ) Concepts of survival in ancient pagan
literature were never of the kind to engender hope or to
lure human beings toward a desirable future life. Hades,
Sheol, etc., were dark, dank “underworlds” in which the
“shades” of departed heroes and heroines roamed about
listlessly and hopelessly. (Poetic descriptions of the
ce
underworld’’ in ancient writings cause one to envision in
imagination the misty swamps and jungles of such an area
as, for example, that of the Everglades (especially as seen
by television). The Lament of Achilles (Odyssey, Bk.
XI) eloquently portrays the hopelessness of such a future
state. On greeting Bdysseus, Achilles is made to say:
“How didst thou dare t o come down t o the house of
Hades, where dwell the senseless dead, the phantoms of
men outworn?’’ Then, later, the Lament: “Do not, 0
noble Odysseus, speak to me of death: rather would I live
on earth as the hireling of another, of a man of low estate,
who had not much livelihood, than to have the rule over
this whole kingdom of the departed dead.” ( 6 ) What
modern writers call “the tragic sense of life” has its source
largely in the contemplation of the mystery of death. It
is this sentiment which underlies present-day Existential-
306
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
ism. For “theistic existentialists,” life, and especially death,
means the confrontation of God; for the “atheistic exis-
tentialists” it means the confrontation of nothingness. For
Heidegger, contemplation of death as the absolute end was
the source of Aiigsf (“anxiety”) which jer se made this
life of great value, For Camus, awareness of death makes
us aware of being. This same general motif permeates
much of modern literature. Henley who wrote the song
of the Stoic had a tragic bout with tuberculosis and com-
mitted suicide. Hemingway, with all his bravado, acknowl-
edged he could not accept conquest by death, but admitted
his abject surrender to it by committing suicide. As stated
heretofore, the works of present-day dramatists, novelists,
and often of the poets, express little more than the object
pessimism of the Cult of Futility.
3 . There is but oiie Faith in all the world that envisions
itltiinately the death of death itself: that is the Chistim
FIFjtb (Acts 6:7, 13:8, 14:22; Gal. 1:23; Jude 3, 2 0 ) . ( 1 )
Human reaction to the fact of death has always taken two
forms, namely, the sense of ultimate frustration, and the
elemental dread of facing the unknown (that is, the in-
experienced). The Bible itself recognizes this human bond-
age to the fear (dread) of death (Heb. 2:14-15). The
patriarch Job in days of old uttered the universal cry: “If
a man die, shall he live again?” (John 14: 14, cf. all of ch.
1 4 ) . This question was never answered until it wm an-
swered once for all time when the stone was rolled away
frmn the eiitrance to Joseph’s tomb. ( 2 ) The Resurrection
of Christ is God’s pledge of the resurrection and glorifica-
tion of His elect (Rom. 2:7, 8 : 1 1 ) , and the indwelling
Holy Spirit is the seal of their ultimate inheritance of glory
and honor and incorruption, Life Everlasting. (Rom. 8 :2 3,
8:28-30; Acts 2:22-36, 10:39-41; 2 Cor. 1:22, 5 : 5 ; Eph.
1:11, 13-14; Eph. 4:30; Col. 1:12, 3:24; 1 Pet. 1:3-5;
Rom. 1:3-4; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5 : l - 1 0 ;
John 5:28-29, etc.). ( 3 ) The resurrection of Christ was
3 07
 GENESIS
the outstanding theme of all apostolic preaching. The
reasons are obvious: If the Resurrection occurred as an
event in space and time, it follows: (a) that there is a
God, a living God; (b) that Jesus of Nazareth is the
Christ, the Son of the living God (Rom. 10:9-10); (c)
that the Bible is what it claims to be, God’s progressive
revelation to mankind of His Plan of Redemption in which
H e proposes “to sum up all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:lO) ;
and (d) that all other so-called “religions,” cults, philoso-
phies, etc., having no empty tomb, are false, and without
any Divine authentication whatsoever, Christianity stakes
everything on t h e historicity of the Resurrectioi?. , (Matt.
12:39, Luke 11:29). (4) The Bible explicitly declares
that God’s Eternal Purpose intends nothing short of the
ultimate abolition of death altogether ( I Cor. 1f:26),
that “what is mortal may be swallowed up of life” ( 2
Cor. 5:4) in the “new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness’’ (2 Pet. 3 :13).
M. M. Davis (RMNC, 140) tells of an incident which
occurred while Robert Owen, the British Socialist, visited
Alexander Campbell, then President of Bethany College,
West Virginia, a t the Campbell homestead on the College
grounds, to make final arrangements for their debate that
was held subsequently a t Cincinnati. “While a t Bethany,
the two were strolling together one evening over the farm,
when they came to the family burying-ground. Mr. Owen
paused and said to Mr. Campbell: ‘There is one advantage
I have over the Christian--I awz not ufruid to die. Most
Christians have fear in death; but if some few items of my
business were settled, I should be perfectly willing to die
a t any moment.’ Mr. Campbell replied: ‘You say you have
no fear in death; have you any hope in death?’ After a
solemn pause, Mr. Owen said, ‘NO.’ ‘Then,’ continued
Mr. Campbell, pointing to an ox standing near, ‘you are
on a level with that brute. He has fed till he is satisfied,
and stands in the shade whisking off the flies, and has
308
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
neither fear nor hope in death.’ Mr. Owen, unable to
meet this simple, but crushing, reply, only smiled in his
confusion, and made no attempt to do it.”
The Christian hope is not simply the hope of continu-
ance in existence. It is infinitely more than this. It is
the hope of seeing God face to face, the hope of unbroken
fellowship with the Heavenly Father in the Life Everlast-
ing. It is the hope that is inspired by, and will be realized
through, the victory of faith ( 1 John 5:4).
11%Edeia where everythiizg was life, G o d spoke of death;
in the world at large, where everything is death, God
speaks of life. In Eden God said, “in the day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). The
Devil said, through the serpent, “Ye shall not surely die”
(Gen. 3:4). All this talk of death in the midst of pulsat-
ing life (Gen. 2:16) ! Now, when everything around us
testifies of death, God says, “He that believeth on the Son
hath eternal life” (John 3 :36). I n all His recorded teach-
ing, Jesus is represented as saying very little about death.
The theme that was repeatedly on His lips was life. (John
14:6, 1:4, 11:25-26, 5:40, 4:14, 10:10, 6:3j, 5:26, 10:17-
1 8 ) . The Overcomers are those who shall have “washed
their robes, that they may have the right to tLe tree of
life’” etc. (Rev. 22:14).
* * * e *
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART FIFTEEN
I. Cite Scriptures showing that God’s activity is pur-
posef ul.
2. Explain what is meant by God’s “Eternal Purpose,”
and by “the Mystery of His WiIL7’
J. Is the Bible a mystery, or is it the revelation of the
Divine Mystery? Explain.
4. Show why God’s Eternal Purpose necessarily includes
all that H e foreordains.
3 09
 GENESIS
5 . List those matters which God foreordains “from the
foundation of the world.”
6. Explain what is meant by “the privilege of adoption.”
7. Explain what is meant by “conformity to the image
of God’s Son,” and show how this is related to the
Christian doctrine of immortality.
8. What is the consummating phase of the Eternal
Purpose?
9. According to Scripture, does God call His elect by an
operation of the Spirit (a) independent of the Word,
(b) in addition to the Word, or (c) through the
Word per se as written or proclaimed? Explain your
answers.
10. What was the design of the charismata in the early
church ?
11. What is the relation between process and law in the
physical world?
12. Why do we say that the processes and laws of the
physical world are Divinely foreordained?
1 3 . On what grounds do we hold that Creation and Re-
demption are both phases of God’s Cosmic Plan?
14. Does more law in the physical world mean less God?
Explain.
1 j . State the substance of Christopher’s explanation of the
logical connection between the angelic apostasy and
God’s Remedial System for mankind.
16. Discuss: How could God’s ineffable love been demon-
strated more effectively than in a world of lost
sinners?
17. State Trueblood’s presentation of “the Christian para-
dox of sin.’’
18. State in substance our definition of true morality.
How is it related to religion?
19. Distinguish between a crime and a sin.
20. According to the teaching of Jesus, what two classes
will there be in the Judgment?
310
 GOD’S ETERNAL PURPOSE
21. What are the two Supreme Universals of human ex-
perience?
22. How has the contemplation of death affected human
thought and life generally?
23. Give examples from literature of the effect of the
mystery of death on human thinking.
24. What, according to Cassirer, was primitive man’s atti-
tude toward death?
25. Show the correlation between the ancient Cult of
Fertility and man’s attitude toward death.
26. Show the correlation between the ancient Cult of the
Dead and man’s attitude toward death.
27. Show the correlation between the modern Cult of
Futility and man’s attitude toward death.
2 8 . What picture has Homer given us of the Underworld?
29. What is the source of modern pessimism as expressed
in the phrase, “the tragic sense of life”?
30. Show how this phrase is to be correlated with the
cults of present-day Existentialism.
31. What is the only Faith t h a t envisions ultimately the
death of death itself?
32. What was Job’s question in days of old? Where and
when was’ this question answered once for all time?
3 3. State the full significance of the Resurrection of Christ,
and show how it is related to the existence of God, to
the Messiahship of Jesus, to the Divine inspiration of
Scripture, and to the false religions and cults which
human authority tries to substitute for the Christian
Faith.
34. Why was the Resurrection the main theme of the
apostolic message ?
3 5 . On what event does Christianity stake everything?
36. Explain the phrase, “ t h a t what is mortal may be
swallowed up of life.’’
37. What does God in His Eternal Purpose design ulti-
mately about death?
31 1
 GENESIS
38. What is the true Christian’s attitude toward death?
39. Why, then, do we as Christians often make our funerals
so pagan in character?
40. What is the Christian hope?
41. Contrast God’s main theme in the Garden of Eden
with His main theme in the world a t large.
42. What is the outstanding theme in the teaching of
Jesus? Cite Scriptures for your answer
43. What is the significance of this fact for us?
44. Why is Christianity supremely the religion of joy?

3 12
 PART SIXTEEN
EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
The following stateinelits appeared recently in a local
churcli publication: “The Fall runs straight across tlie path
of the theory of evolution. If evolution is true, then t h e
Biblical teaching conceriiiiig sin and salvation and the
ultimate judgment upon man is uot. Evolution teaches
t h a t man gradually evolves upward; t h e Bible teaches that
man began perfect, sinned, and has devolved downward
ever since. One has to take a choice: you can’t have it
both ways, T o hold t o an evolutionary concept of man’s
history one has to get rid of the Fall. This doesn’t mean
to interpret the book of Genesis as a book of ‘myths with
spiritual truths.’ It means to get rid of Jesus and His
teaching which supports the Fall. It means t h a t the Old
Testament prophets have to go, with their pronouncements
on the subject. Then you have to throw out the New
Testament letters which declare the Fall as a reality and
explain how it is overcome through Christ,” etc.
These are positive “either-or” affirmations‘. They pre-
cipitate certain very significant questions, such as the
following: Is there any possible ground of reconciliation
of the evolution hypothesis with t h e Genesis account of
t h e Fall? Furthermore, is there any real necessity for de-
manding such a reconciliation as a factor in validating
“the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints”
(Jude 3 ) ? That is, are the two subjects genuinely relevant
to each other, and, if so, how far does this relevance ex-
tend? Is to try to find harmony with respect to every
detail involved in both the Biblical and ccscientific”accounts
really necessary, or even justifiable? Finally, is it true t h a t
man “began perfect”? Or, did he “begin” innocent with
the potentiality of attaining wholeness or perfection? One
thing is sure, namely, t h a t i n a i l as we know him historically
avd experientially, is aiiything but the epitome of pkysi-
cal, mental, moral or spirifidal peyfection. N o one but a
313
 GENESIS
person blinded by his own conceits would even question
this fact.
I n sharp contrast to the view presented above, Dr. A.
H. Strong, who can hardly be accused of heresy with
respect to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, has
written as follows (ST, 465, 466) : “The Scripmres, on
the one hand, negate the idea that man is the mere
product of unreasoning natural forces. They refer his
existence to a cause different from mere nature, namely,
.
the creative act of God. . . But, on the other hand,
the Scriptures do not disclose the method of man’s crea-
tion. Whether man’s physical system is or is not derived,
by natural descent from the lower animals, the record of
creation does not inform us. As the command, ‘Let the
earth bring forth living creatures’ (Gen. 1:24), does not
exclude the idea of mediate creation, so the forming of man
‘of the dust of the ground’ (Gen. 2 : 7 ) does not in itself
determine whether the creation of man’s body was mediate
.
or immediate. . . Evolution does not make the idea of a
Creator superfluous, because evolution is only the method
of God. It is perfectly consistent with a Scriptural doc-
trine of Creation that man should emerge a t the proper
time, governed by different laws from the brute creation,
yet growing out of the brute, just as the foundation. of a
house built of stone is perfectly consistent with the wooden
structure built upon it. All depends upon the plan. An
atheistic and undesigning evolutioa cannot include man
without excluding what Christianity regards as essential to
. .
man. . But a theistic evolution can recognize the whole
process of man’s creation equally the work of nature and
the work of God. . . . Psychology comes to our help in
the interpretation of Scripture. The radical differences
between man’s soul and the principle of intelligence in the
lower animals, especially man’s possession of self -conscious-
ness, general ideas, the moral sense, and the power of self-
determination, show that that which chiefly constitutes
314
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
him man, could not have been derived, by any natural
process o i development, from the inferior creatures. We
are compelled, then, t o believe t h a t God’s ‘breathing into
man’s nostrils t h e breath of life’ (Gen. 2 : 7 ) , though i t
was a mediate creation as presupposing existing inaterial
in t h e shape of animal forms, was yet a n immediate crea-
tion in the sense that oiily a divine reinforcement of t h e
process of life turned the animal into man. In other words,
man came not fronz the brute, but fhu“gh the brute, aiid
the same itnmaiieiit God who had previously created t h e
brute created also the man.” Again (466) : ‘ ‘ D r ~ ~ n m ~ ~ i d ,
in his Asceiif of M a l i , concedes t h a t inaii passed through
a period when he resembled the ape more than any kiiown
animal, but at the same time declares t h a t no anthropoid
ape could develop into a man. The brute can be defined
in terms of man, but inan cannot be defined in terms of
the brute. It is significant t h a t in insanity the higher
endowments of man disappear in a n order precisely the
reverse of t h a t in which, according to t h e development
theory, they have been acquired. The highest part of inan
totters first. The last added is first to suffer.” Again,
quoting J. M. Broilson (466) : “The theist must accept
evolution if he would keep his argument for t h e existence
of God from t h e unity of design in nature. Unless man is
an end, lie is a n a i i o m a / y , The greatest argument for God
is the fact that all animate nature is one vast aiid connected
unity. Man has developed not f i r o m the ape, but uway
from the ape. He was never anything but potential man.
H e did not, as inan, come into being until he became a
coiiscious moral agent.” To this Strong adds : “This
coiiscious moral nature, which we call personality, requires
a divine Author, because it surpasses all the powers which
can be found in the animal creation.” But, is t h e “breath-
ing into man’s nostrils” of “the breath of life” to be ex-
plained (as in Strong’s statement) as a “reinforcement of
the process of life” t h a t “turned the animal into a man”?
315
 GENESIS
What kind of “reinforcement”? Or, just what did this
ct
reinforcement” consist of? The word “reinforcement,”
as used here, strikes me as being exceedingly vague. Surely
the texts of Gen. 1:27 and 2:7 leave us with only one
valid interpretation, namely, that the “breath of God”
carried with it a direct impartation from God Himself of
those powers which specify man as maiz--his intellectual,
moral and spiritual endowments, in fact the essence of his
interior life. Gen. 1:28, if it means anything, surely means
that God breathed into him, not just the life principle, but
the rational principle as well which is that which consti-
tutes him a conscious moral creature. (Cf. Gen. 6:17; Eccl.
12:7; Job 33:4,32:8; Psa. 139:14; Eccl. 12:7; Acts 17:25).
It will be recalled that Lotze, the German philosopher, held
that a t certain stages of development, God, by direct action,
inserted into the creative process new increments of power,
namely, the phenomena of energy-matter, life, conscious-
ness, and self -consciousness, respectively, thus accounting
for the gaps that still obtain in scientific thought between
successively higher levels of being. It will also be recalled,
in this connection, that Trueblood (PR, 98-102) contends
that what he calls “the fact of evolution” is a positive
proof of our theistic God. He quotes Archbishop Temple
as saying, “The more completely we include Mind within
Nature, the more inexplicable must Nature become except
by reference to Mind.” Trueblood himself then adds, that
if man’s life is included in the evolution theory, “we can-
not escape the conclusion that mind and nature are akin,”
that “mind is not accidental in nature,” but “a revelation
of the nature of nature.” The thesis of his argument is
that such a unity is a unity of design, one that “arises
only from effective operation of purpose.” (Cf. Isa.
44:6-8, 46:8-11; Psa. 33:6-9, 148:l-6; Acts 17:23-31).
Let us now examine the facts, as briefly as possible,
which have to do with the problem of evolutionism and its
bearing on the Genesis narrative of the Fall. (I suggest
316
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
t h a t the student read again my Geiiesis, Vol. 1, pp. J J 9 -
601). In pursuing this study, we must call attention again
t o the difference in meaning of the terms, “evolution”
and “evolutioiiism.” The former designates only the pro-
cess itself, the process of “continuous progressive change.”
The latter term designates how the process “proceeds,”
t h a t is, the methodology of it, t h e factors which are said
to have actualized it. Evolufioiiisim is also properly desig-
nated the fheory of evolution.
So much by way of introduction. We shall now sum-
marize those various aspects of t h e material t o be presented
here, as follows:
1. Coizceniiiig the evolutioiiists fheiizselues. ( 1) Gen-
erally speaking, evolutionists are persons who summarily
reject any kind of evidence that cannot be supported by
empirical observation and measurement: in their own
“universe of discourse,” they are known as Positivists. ( 2 )
In the main they are men who are either non-religious or
positively anti-religious in attitude, Hence, they reject a
priori any notion of what might be called the “super-
natural.” In this respect they belong in the same school
as t h e “analytical critics” and “demythologizers” who ap-
proach history from t h e a priori assumption that any event
described as a “miracle” cannot be material for genuine
history, no matter how strong the evidence of eye-
witnesses in support of it, and hence must be explained
(rather, “explained away”) on a naturalistic basis or re-
jected outright. David F. Strauss, whose Life o f Jesus
attained such great popularity in Germany about a century
ago, set the fashion in this area of criticism: accepting the
historicity of Jesus, he made a vain effort, however, to
explain away His miracles in naturalistic terms. T h e
French writer, Renan, fell into the same error: as someone
has said, his Life o f Jesus “rests on the soft pillow of
doubt.” ( 3 ) Of course, evolutionists generally, like scien-
tists of all persuasions, are influenced by the arbitrary
3 17
 GENESIS
assumption that lies a t the root of all scientific inquiry,
namely, that events which cannot be established empiri-
cally (that is, by sense-perception, or by sense-perception
implemented by proper mechanical devices such as the
microscope and the telescope) cannot be accepted as be-
longing to true science. Notably, in this connection, many
scientists scoff at all research in the field of extrasensory
perception and psychokinesis, largely because they regard
this kind of research as lying beyond the area of scientific
investigation in the true sense of that term. Indeed, many
of them manifest cgmpletely closed minds to all the con-
clusions reached by the investigators of the phenomena
of the subconscious. Again quoting Dr. Jauncey (SRG,
5 7 ) : “All we can say at the moment is that evolution is
generally accepted, possibly because of the lack of any
scientific alternative, but with serious misgivings on the
adequacy of some aspects of it.”
(4) Many evolutionists-indeed, I should say, the great
majority of them-are fundamentally ignorant of the
teaching of the Bible, in particular of its internal unity,
and hence of its basic content and design. It is doubtful
that they have even a passing acquaintance with the Holy
’Spirit, or indeed even know that the Holy Spirit is (cf.
Acts 19:2). Over-specialization has much to do with this
tragic lacuna in the knowledge of men high in secular aca-
demic circles. One of our humorists-Will Rogers, if my
memory serves me right-has aptly remarked that “the
most ignorant man in the world is the fellow who is highly
specialized in one particular field when he ventures out-
side the field he is specialized in.” Years ago, when the
first Henry Ford was in his prime, I would have believed
almost anything he had to say about the manufacture and
marketing of automobiles. But when he ventured into
print on matters of religion and politics, as all such gentle-
men are prone t o do, I could hardly accept anything he
said : his statements demonstrated his colossal ignorance of
318
 EVOLUTIONISM AND TIlE FALL
both subjects. The same is true of the fulminations of
Edison, Burbank, Clarence Darrow, Joliii Dewey, and all
their lriiid: yet the authority of a great iiaine often leads
thousands of gullible persons into agregious fallacies. I
recall, in my days in college, certain professors who went
out of their way to poke fun a t some o f the Bible narra-
tives, but their very stateiiieiits proved that they knew
little or nothing about t h e subjects they ventured to discuss
with all the pontifical soleiiiiiity of a self -appointed pundit.
(5) It is notoriously true that evolutionists have been
addicted to the use of poiiiyous language and to extrava-
gant, if not actually ridiculous, claims in support of their
hypothesis. Recall here, for example, Herbert Spencer’s
grandiose definition of evolution as “coiitiiiuous change
froin indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, to definite, coher-
ent heterogeneity of structure a i d function, through suc-
cessive differentiations and integrations.” One is reminded,
too, of Haeckel’s “Tree of Life” in which he presented the
course of evolution under the likeiiess of a great spreading
tree, Haecliel hiinself supplyiiig the inultif arious “niissiiig
links” out of his own fantastically fertile imagination. In
similar vein, we recall the tendency aiiioiig historians of
our time, as, e.g., thc late H. G. Wells in his 074t1inc of
History, to introduce actual history with chapters on what
is obviously prehistory and hence generally conjectural. I
can see 110 justification for this method, especially in view
of the fact t h a t tlie obvious distiiictioii between the charac-
ter of prehistory and that of history proper is never clearly
defined for t h e reader. One is reminded here also of claims
that have been made recently for tlie antiquity of inan,
stretching his existence 011 earth theoretically as far back
as 500,000 years. One wonders, if honio sakien\. has been
around t h a t long, what 017 carfh h a s h e been doing througli-
out all these millenia. Surely, there is no evidence from
archaeology, or froin any other source, that lie made much
progress, either iiiaterially or spiritually, apparently begin-
319
 GENESIS
ning to do so only some IO,OOO years ago, in what is called
the Neolithic Age. As a matter of fact, history proper
had its beginning no farther back than about 5,000 B.C.-
and indubitably history is mgde b y mea.
The late William Jennings Bryan who, from the role he
played in the notorious “monkey trial” (a silly term of
journalistic coinage, and one that exudes scorn, no doubt
designedly) in Tennessee, has been caricatured in scientific
publications, in so-called religious periodicals, and even in
the daily press, as a kind of nit-wit, was anythiizg bzbt t h t .
(Bryan, unfortunately, allowed himself to be put on the
defensive in the Scopes trial, and this is something that one
must never do in facing an atheist or an agnostic: the
believer has nothing to fear by taking the offensive in such
situations. Bryan was, of course, a bit naive in some of
his statements, but Darrow was downright ignorant of the
teaching of the Bible and displayed his ignorance in the
arguments he presented.) This writer personally heard
Bryan speak, on several occasions, including his famed
public lecture, “In the Image of God.” In the printed
version of this speech, he pointed up some of the extrava-
gant claims of the evolutionists in suppore of their hypo-
thetical brainchild. Because so few persons in our day and
age have any real understanding of Eryan’s efforts and of
the real circumstances of the Scopes trial, I present here a
few paragraphs from this lecture, as follows (IHM, 90-
106) : “Before commenting on the Darwinian hypothesis
let me refer you to the language of its author as it applies
to man. O n page 180 of Descent of Man (Hurst and
Company, Edition 1874), Darwin says: ‘Our most ancient
progenitors in the kingdom of the Vertebrata, a t which we
are able to obtain an obscure glance, apparently consisted
of a group of marine animals, resembling the larvae of the
existing Ascidians.’ Then he suggests a line of descent lead-
ing t o the monkey. And h i does not even permit us to in-
dulge in a patriotic pride of ancestry; instead of letting us
320
 EVOLUTIONISM AND TIlE FALL
descend froin American monlceys, he connects us with the
European branch of tlie moiikey family, It will be noted,
first, that he begins tlie summary witli tlie word ‘ap-
parently,’ which t h e Standard Dictionary defines: ‘as
judged by appearances, without passing upon its reality.’
His second seiiteiice (f ollowiiig tlie sentence quoted) turns
upon t h e word ‘probably,’ which is defined: ‘as far as t h e
evideiice shows, presumably, 1iIw.ly.’ His works are full
of words iiidicatiiig uncertainty. The phrase, ‘we may
well suppose,’ occurs over eight hundred times in liis two
principal works. (See Herald arid Pwsbyfer, November 22,
1914). The eminent scientist is guessing. . , . If we
could divide tlie huinaii race into two distinct groups we
might allow evolutionists to worsliip brutes as ancestors
but they insist on coniiectiiig all mankiiid witli tlie jungle.
.
We have a right to protect our family tree. . . Darwin
is absurd as well as groundless. He aniiouiices two laws,
which, in liis judgment, explain t h e developinelit of man
from the lowest form of animal life, namely, natural selec-
tion and sexual selection. The latter lias been abandoned
by the modern believers in evolution, but two illustrations
from Darwin’s Desceiif of Man, will show his uiireliability
as a guide t o the young. On page j87 of t h e 1874 edition,
he tries to explain man’s superior mental streiigth (a prop-
ositioii more difficult to defend today than in Darwin’s
time). His theory is that, ‘the struggle between the males
for the possession of the females’ helped to develop the inale
miiid and t h a t this superior strength was transmitted by
males to their male offspring. After having shown, to liis
own satisfaction, how sexual selection would accouiit for
tlie (supposed) greater strength of tlie male miiid, h e turns
his atteiitioii to another question, namely, how did maii
become a hairless aiiiinal? This lie accouiits for also by
sexual selection-the females preferred tlie males with t h e
least hair (page 624). . . . A comment and a question:
First, unless tlie brute females were very different from
321
 GENESIS
females as we know them, they would not have agreed in
taste. Some would ‘probably’ have preferred males with
less hair, others, ‘we may well suppose,’ would have pre-
ferred males with more hair. Those with more hair would
naturally be the stronger because better able to resist the
weather. But, second, how could the males have strength-
ened their minds by fighting for the females, if, a t the
same time, the females were breeding the hair off by select-
ing the males? Or, did the males select for three years
and then allow the females to do the selecting during leap
.
year? , . YY

Again: “But how does the evolutionist explain the eye

when he leaves God out? Here is the only guess that I
have seen-if you find any others I shall be glad to know
of them, as I am collecting the guesses of the evolutionists.
The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes
were unknown-this is a necessary part of the hypothesis.
And since eye is a universal possession among living things
the evolutionist guesses that it came into being-not by
design or by act of God-but just happened, and how did
it happen? I will give you the guess-a piece of pigment,
or, as some say, a freckle appeared upon the skin of an
animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle
converged the rays of the sun upon that spot and when
the animal felt the heat on that spot it turned the spot
to the sun to get more heat. The increased heat irritated
the skin-so the evolutionists guess, and a nerve came there,
and out of the nerve came the eye! Can you beat it? But
this only accounts for one eye: there must have been an-
other piece of pigment or freckle soon afterward and just
in the right place in order to give the animal two eyes.
And, according to evolutionists, there was a time when
animals had no legs, and so the leg came by accident.
How? Well, the guess is that a little animal without legs
was wiggling along on its belly one day when it discovered
a wart-it just happened so-and it was in the right place
322
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
to be used to aid it in locomotion; SO, it came to depend
upon the wart, aiid use finally developed it into a leg.
And then another wart aiid aiiother leg, a t the proper
time-by accident-and accidentally in tlie proper place.
Is it iiot astonishing that aiiy person intelligent enough
to teach school would talk such toinmyrot to students aiid
look serious while doing so? And yet I read only a few
weeks ago, on page 124 of a little book recently issued by
a promimiit New York minister, t h e following: ‘Man has
grown up in this universe gradually developing his powers
and fuiictioiis as respoiises to his environment. If he has
eyes, so the biologists assure us, i t is because light waves
played ukon t h e skiif aiid eyes came out in answer; if he
has eai’s it is because the d i r waves were there first aiid tlie
ears calm out to hear. Mali iiever yet, nccordjiig t o the
evolutionist, developed aiiy power save as a reality called
it into being. There would be no fins if there were no
water, no wings if there were no air, no legs if there were
no land.’ You see I called your atteiition to only forty
per cent of t h e absurdities; h e speaks of eyes, ears, fins,
wings and legs-five. I called attention only to eyes and
legs-two. The evolutionist guesses himself away from
God, but he oiily makes matters worse. H o w long did the
‘light waves’ have to play on the skin before the eyes came
out? The evolutionist is very deliberate; he is long on
time. He would certainly give t h e eye thousands of years,
if iiot millions, in which to develop; but how could lie be
sure that the light waves played all the time in one place
or played in the same place generation after generation
until tlie development was complete? And why did the
light waves quit playing when two eyes were perfected?
Why did they not keep on playing until there were eyes
all over the body? Why do they iiot play today, so t h a t
we may see eyes in the process of development? And if
the light waves created tlie eyes, why did they iiot create
them strong enough to bear t h e light? Why did t h e light
323
 GENESIS
waves make eyes and then make eyelids to keep the light
out of the eyes? And so with the ears. They must have
gone in ‘to hear’ instead of o u t , and wasn’t it lucky that
they happened t o go in on opposite sides of the head instead
of cater-cornered or a t random? . .. ¶’

Again: “Last November I was passing through Phila-

delphia and read in an afternoon paper a report of an
address delivered in that city by a college professor em-
ployed in extension work. Here is an extract from the
paper’s account of the speech: ‘Evidence that early men
climbed trees with their feet lies in the way we wear the
heels of our shoes-more a t the outside. A baby can
wiggle its big toe without wiggling its other toes-an indi-
cation that it once used its big toe in climbing trees.’ What
a consolation it must be to mothers t o know that the baby
is not to be blamed for wiggling the big toe without wig-
gling the other toes. It cannot help it, poor little thing; it
is an inheritance from ‘the tree man,’ so the evolutionists
tell us. And here is another extract: ‘We often dream of
falling. Those who fell out of the trees some fifty thou-
sand years ago and were killed, of course, had no descen-
dants. So those who fell and were not hurt, of course,
lived, and so we are never hurt in our dreams of falling,’
Of course, if we were actually descended from the in-
habitants of trees, it would seem quite likely that we de-
scended from those who were not killed in falling. But
they must have been badly frightened if the impression
made upon their feeble minds could have lasted for fifty
thousand years and still be vivid enough t o scare us. If
the Bible said anything so idiotic as these guessers put forth
in the name of science, scientists would have a great time
ridiculing the sacred pages, but men who scoff a t the
recorded interpretation of dreams of Joseph and Daniel
seem to be able to swallow the amusing interpretations
offered by the Pennsylvania professior.’~
3 24
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
Finally: “A few months ago t h e Smnday Schoo1 Tiiiies
quoted a professor in an Illinois University as saying t h a t
the great day in history was the day when a water puppy
crawled up on t h e land and, deciding to be a land animal,
became man’s progenitor. If these scientific speculators
can agree upon the day they will probably insist on our
abandoning Washington’s Birthday, the Fourth of July,
and even Christmas, in order to join with the whole world
in celebrating ‘Water Puppy Day.’ ” “Within the last few
weeks the papers published a dispatch from Paris to the
effect t h a t an ‘eminent scientist’ announced t h a t he had
communicated with the spirit of a dog and learned from
the dog t h a t it was happy. Must we believe this, too?”
We might go and on here with excerpts from Mr. Bryan’s
lecture couched in similar vein; we feel, however, t h a t the
foregoing are sufficient to demonstrate the speculative e x -
travagances to which the rabid evolutionists resort in sup-
port of their hypothesis-for evolution is, eveii dowii t o
OUY day, still a hypothesis.
( 6 ) Evolutionists reject all attempts t h a t are, or could
be, made to show correspondence between the Genesis
account of the Creation and their own theory. All the
prominent originators of the theory of evolution-Darwin,
Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Wallace, and the rest-were
firm opponents of the Biblical view of t h e world and of
man. Generally speaking, the same is equally true of our
present-day crop as well. To be sure, there are men-
eminent scholars-who have sought to point up a possible
correspondence in broad outlines, under the caption of
theistic evolution, between the theory and the teaching of
Genesis; still, the foremost advocates of the evolutionary
view in our day look with considerable disdain-and even
contempt-on all such efforts and those who would even
suggest t h a t such harmony exists or is possible. For exam-
ple, Goldschmidt, the geneticist writes (art., “Evolution,
as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scieiitist, Vol. 40,
32J

.
 GENESIS
January 1952, p. 8 5 ) : “Another type of evolutionary
theory hardly deserves to be mentioned in a scientific paper.
This is the mystical approach, which hides its insufficient
understanding of the facts behind such empty words as
creative evolution, emergent evolution, holism, and psycho-
.
Lamarckism. . . The biologist does not receive any con-
structive help from such ideas and is forced to ignore
them.” (I might interpolate here that the insufficient
understanding, of these gentlemen, of Biblical teaching
is pitiful; it would be laughable, if i t were not so tragic.)
G. G. Simpson, the bellwether of the present-day mater-
ialistic school, has “delivered himself’’ on the subject of
theistic views of evolution as follows (“Evolutionary
Determinism and the Fossil Record,” Scientific Molzthly,
Vol. 71, October 1950, p. 264): “The fossil record defi-
nitely does not accord with . . . the concept of ortho-
genesis or more broadly with overtly or covertly non-mate-
rialistic theories like those of Driesch, Bergson, Osborne,
Cuenot, du Nuoy, or Vandel.” In an important address
recently a t the Darwinian Centennial Convention and the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science a t the University of Chicago, Simp-
son spoke just as positively. Among other things, said he,
“Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physi-
cal properties of the universe, by which life arose in the
first place and by which all living things, past or present,
have since developed, divergently and progressively. . . .
Life may conceivably be happier for some people in the
other worlds of superstition. It is possible that some chil-
dren are made happy by a belief in Santa Claus, but adults
should prefer to live in a world of reality and reason”
(cf. Simpson, “The World Into Which Darwin Led Us,”
Science, Vol. 131, April 1, 1960, pp. 969, 973-974).
Julian Huxley was quoted in an Associated Press dispatch,
November 27, 1959, as saying this, at the same Convoca-
tion: “In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no
326
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
loiiger need or room for the supernatural. The earth was
not created: it evolved. So did all the aiiiinals mid plants
t h a t inhabit it, including our huinaii selves, mind and soul,
as well as brain and body. So did religio~i.’~And C. D.
Darlington, Professor of Botany a t Oxford, sums up t h e
issue from his point of view in this terse statement (“The
Origin of Darwiiiism,” Scientific Americai7, Vol. 200,
May 1959, p. 66) : “We owe t o t h e O~i,yinof Species the
overthrow of t h e myth of Creation.” The paeans t h a t
have been sung to Darwin in the past century have been
fantastic, to say the least. We would Iiumbly suggest t h a t
they be assembled, and together with those offered up in
tlie worship of Marx and Freud, presented to t h e world
in a volume t h a t would aptly be entitled. “The Hymnody
of Scientism.” In the statements quoted above the fact
stands out as prima facie evidence t h a t in each case the
wish is father to t h e thought.
2 . Conce~i?ingevoliitioi7isiii. ( 1) The antireligious prej-
udice of the evolutionists, particularly of those who cham-
pion the strictly materialistic version of t h e theory,
prompts them to proclaim vociferously that evoliitioii is a
fact. They malie no bones about asserting doginatically
t h a t their case is proved-again a case in which the wish
is father t o the tho2{ght. Whether they choose to be
known as “naturalists,” “humanists,JJ “positivists,” “ma-
terialists,” or what not, they are all anti-theistic: in short,
they are aiiti-God, t h a t is, in any sense of tlie term “God”
t h a t is coiigenial and helpful to mankind. Obviously,
then, in their tliinliing man is not the image of God, for
tlie simple reason t h a t there is no Deity of which he can
be the image; hence, as Chestertoii has put it, we must
conclude t h a t he is “a disease of t h e dust.” In strict truth,
however, euolutionisna is n o t a fact-it is a faith. N o one
ever witnessed tlie eniergeiice of a new species. No one
on earth knows how such an emergence takes place (if it
does). Moreover, the time element claimed by devotees
3 27
 GENESIS
of the hypothesis is so vast as to put it forever beyond all
possibility of empirical (eye-witness) verification. T h e
varioms argunients in support of the theory m e matters
of inference. Hence the questions arise, is all this neces-
sary inference? Or, how much of it is just conjectural
We are reminded here of Mark Twain’s comment: “There
is something so fascinating about science; one gets such
wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling invest-
ments of fact.” Chesterton’s statements about the word
“evolution” are certainly apropos (EM, 2 3 ) : “AS a matter
of fact it is not a very practical word or a very profitable
idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into
something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by ex-
plaining how something could turn into something else.
It is really far more logical to start by saying, ‘In the be-
ginning God created heaven and earth,’ even if you only
mean, ‘In the beginning some unthinkable power began
some unthinkable process.’ For God is by its nature a
name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man
could imagine how a world was created any more than he
could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for
explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many
minds the impression that they do understand it and every-
thing else; just as many of them live under a sort of illu-
sion that they have read the Origin of Species.” I n the
attitude of the evolutioaists that their theory must be
accepted as fact chiefly because there is no alternative but
creation, they commit the fallacy of begging the question:
that is, they assume as fact what actually needs to be
proved, when i t might turn out after all that evolution
is God’s m e t h o d of creation. If decided a priori that the
totality of being must be explained ccnaturally,” obviously
one would be under the necessity of accepting evolution-
ism whether or not it is validated by the available evidence.
Again, Chesterton (EM, 1 3 ) : CCAnicoaoclast may be in-
dignant; an iconoclast may be justly indignant; but an
328
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
iconoclast is iiot impartial. And it is stark hypocrisy to
pretend t h a t nine-tenths of the higher critics and scientific
evolutioiiists and professors of comparative religion are
in the least impartial. Why should they be impartial,
what is being impartial, when t h e whole world is a t war
about whether one thing is a devouring superstition or a
divine hope. , . . They are not impartial; they never by
any chance hold the historical scales even; and above all
they are never impartial upon this point of evolution and
transition. They suggest everywhere the grey gradations
of twilight, because they believe it is the twilight of the
gods. I propose to niaiiitaiii t h a t whether or no it is t h e
twilight of the gods, it is not t h e daylight of men.”
( 2 ) It is most interesting to note here two Scripture
affirmations, Heb. 11: 3 and 2 Pet. 3 : 1-7, which have
significant bearing 011 tlie subject before us. In t h e former
passage, the inspired author tells us t h a t the things we see
with the natural eye (“ages,” as in Heb. 1 : 2 ; cf. t i m e as
the Einsteiiiiaii fourth dimension) have iiot been made out
of these things which appear to our physical vision (cf,
2 Cor. 4:16-18). Robertson (WPNT, V, 419): “The
author denies tlie eternity of matter, a commoii theory
then and now, and places God before the visible universe
as many modern scientists now gladly do” ( t h e physicists
in particular), Is it not significant t h a t what tlie inspired
writer states here is now generally accepted as fact by the
nuclear physicists, namely, t h a t t h e forins of matter which
are amellable to sense-perception are actually constituted
of ultimate forms of energy which are totally inaccessible
to inan’s physical senses. Thus far no man has ever seen
a n atom, much less any of tlie growing number of elemen-
tary particles or forces which go to make up the coiistitu-
eiicy of the atom. Today, inatter in its ultimate form is
apprehensible, not by physical sense-perception, but by
mkthematical calculation; hence, i t is to be regarded truly
as metakhysical rather t h a n as strictly physical. As Liiicolii
329
 GENESIS
Barnett writes (UDE, 114) : “Man’s inescapable impasse is
that he himself is part of the world he seeks to explore;
his body and proud brain are mosaics of the same elemental
particles that compose the dark, drifting clouds of inter-
stellar space; he is, in the final analysis, merely an ephem-
eral conformation of the primordial space-time field.
Standing midway between macrocosm and microcosm he
finds barriers on every side and can perhaps but marvel, as
St. Paul did nineteen hundred years ago, that ‘the world
was created by the word of God so that what is seen was
made out of things which do not appear.”’ (I must
dissent from the view stated above that man is “merely an
ephemeral conformation of the primordial space-time
field.” As a matter of fact, man is the one entity in crea-
tion who is not an ephemeral conformation of any kind:
even in the total scheme of relativity envisioned today by
the physicists, he is the only “framework of reference” to
whom anything else has meaning, and this is by virtue of
the fact that he is essentially imperishable spirit, the image
of God.)
( 3 ) As for the second Scripture cited above, 2 Pet.
3:l-7,the significance is even more startling. Here we
are told that “in the last days mockers shall come with
mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where
is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the
fathers fell asleep, 211 things continue as they were from
the beginning of the creation.’’ We go on to read that
these mockers “wilfully forget, that there were heavens
from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and
amidst water, by the word of God, by which means the
world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished,” etc. Is not all this precisely what the majority
of evolutionists of our time are saying and doing? How
could the picture have been drawn more realistically? And
thus do these mockers, our antitheistic evolutionists, ful-
fill Bible prophecy, although, I am sure, they are blissfully
330
 EVOLUTIONISM A N D THE FALL
unaware of their prophetic identification. True it is today,
as always, t h a t “not many wise after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose t h e
foolish things of the world, t h a t lie might put to shame
them that are wise,” etc. (cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 2 0 - 2 9 ) .
(4) The excessive devotion of the evolutionists to their
brainchild leads them to try to apply the “progressive
developinent” yardstick to every phase of t h e cosmic
process. They would trace chronologically every physical,
astronomical, geological, biological, sociological, even theo-
logical, development in the totality of being. Hence we
now have Loolis with such titles as Stellar Evolution, F ~ o m
Atoms t o Stairs, Biograjhy of the Eai’th, F ~ o i i zMolecules to
Ma71, etc., and innumerable published articles of the same
general trend of thinking. We have Herbert Spencer’s
ct
cultural evolution” theory, namely, t h a t all cultures have
moved “forward” froin savagery through barbarism to
civilization. This concept has long been abandoned by
anthropologists aiid sociologists alike. The evolution yard-
stick was, for a long time, applied to t h e history of religion:
it was held t h a t aiiimisiiz (the belief that eveything is
“ensouled”) was the first form of “religion’’; t h a t in time
animism gave way geiierally to polytheism; t h a t poly-
theism was succeeded by henotheisiiz (a pantheon with a
single sovereign deity) ; and t h a t henotheism developed
into i~zonotheisiiz (belief in one true God to the exclusion
of all other deities), It is held further t h a t monotheism
will ultimately give way to paiitheisiiz, a sophisticated “re-
ligion” in which God is identified with nature or with
some impersonal creative process in nature, the only system,
we are told, which is acceptable to t h e intelligentsia. It is
doubtful t h a t this theory is seriously eiitertaiiied in our
day: there is too much evidence t h a t monotheism has
existed along with these other views, somewhere aiid in
some form, from earliest times. Of course, a t t h e outset
evolutionism had reference oiily to biological development,
331
 GENESIS
to t h e origirz of species. Implicit in all these theories is
the view that nll chnrzge tnkes place fYonz the simple to
the more nnd m o r e couizplex: in logic textbooks this is now
designated “the genetic fallacy,” As stated in one such
textbook (ILSM, 3 8 9 ) : “It is an inexcusable error to
identify the temporal order in which events have actually
occurred, y i t h the logical order in which elements may be
put together to constitute existing institutions. Actual
recorded history shows growth in simplicity as in com-
plexity.” The fact is that in some areas change is not
from the simple to the complex, but just the reverse-from
complexity t o greater simplicity. This is true, for ex-
ample, in the field of linguistics especially: the history of
language is the story of a continuous process of simplifica-
tion. The same is true in the area of social organization:
all one has to do to realize this fact is to contrast the long
tortuous genealogical tables of the most primitive peoples
with the tendency today to minimize, even to disregard,
genealogical tables altogether (cf. 1 Tim. 1:4,Tit. 3 : 9 ) .
Again (ILSM, 3 9 0 ) : “Science, as well as art and certain
social organizations, is sometimes deliberately changed ac-
cording to some idea or pattern to which previous existence
is not relevant.”
( 5 ) It has been charged, and that rightly, that evolu-
tionism has, unfortunately, tended to vitiate intellectual
integrity throughout the scientific world. Some very in-
teresting statements to this effect appear in the Preface,
by W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., Director of the Common-
wealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, to
the most recent Everyman’s Library edition of Darwin’s
Origin of Species. “A long-enduring and regrettable effect
of the Origin,” writes Thompson, “was the addiction of
biologists to unverifiable speculation,” the net result of
which was that “the success of Darwinism was accom-
panied by a decline in scientific iategrity.” “This,” he
adds, ‘(is already evident in the reckless statements of
332
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
Haeckel, and in t h e shifting, devious and histrionic argu-
mentation of T. H. Huxley.” Finally, his conclusion: “It
may be said, and the most orthodox theologians indeed
hold, t h a t God controls and guides even the events due
t o chance; but this proposition the Darwinians emphatic-
ally reject, and it is clear t h a t in the O~iginevolution is
presented as an essentially undirected process. For the
majority of readers, therefore, the O~igineffectively dissi-
pated the evidence of providential control. It might be
said t h a t this was their own fault. Nevertheless, t h e failure
of Darwin and his successors to attempt an equitable assess-
ment of the religious issues a t stake indicate a regrettable
obtuseness and lack of responsibility. Furthermore, on t h e
purely philosophical plane, t h e Darwinian doctrine of
evolution involves some difficulties which Darwin and
Huxley were unable to appreciate.” (I might well add
that their devoted disciples in OUT day seem to have closed
minds on t h e same matters). “Between the organism that
simply lives, the organism t h a t lives and feels, and the
organism t h a t lives, feels, and reasons, there are, in the
opinion of respectable philosophers, abrupt transitions
corresponding to an ascent in the scale of being, aiid they
hold t h a t the agencies of the material world cannot produce
transitions of this kind.” Again, “Biologists still agree on
the separation of plants and animals, but the idea t h a t man
aiid animals differ only in degree is now so general among
them, t h a t even psychologists no longer attempt to use
words like ‘reason’ or ‘intelligence’ in an exact sense. This
general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable
speculations, t h e limits of the categories Nature presents to
us, is an iiiheritaiice of biology from t h e Origin of Species.”
We are reminded here of the attitude of many scientists
toward the conclusions of those men who have been delv-
ing into t h e study of the phenomena of t h e Subconscious
in man. Dr. J. B. Rhine, liead of the Department of
Parapsychology at Duke University, has some pertinent
333
 GENESIS
remarks to make on this subject. “Fear,” comments Rhine,
“more than anything else, blocks scientific acceptance.
First, there is fear of having to accept as real something
that does not harmonize with a physicalistic philosophy.
The acceptance of nonphysical action would admit two
kinds of reality, and divide the universe. Such a step looks
like a throwback to supernaturalism.” (The author-of
The Rench o f the Mirfd-then goes on to show that it is
an error to think that ESP and PK lead to dualism. “The
very act in which the two systems of mind and body
operate upon each other necessarily unifies them to some
degree into a single process. No one can conceive of the
interaction of two systems, except by supposing that there
are properties common to both. Indeed, we can conclude
in all safety that the facts do not require one to be a
dualist-they do not nllozu one to be.”) Rhine continues:
“The other fear that retards the scientific acceptance of
ESP-PK is a social one: fear of losing caste in one’s profes-
sion. Many scientists have experimented with ESP and
PI< in secret. Occasionally we learn of successful and
valuable experiments, only to be told that (for professional
reasons’ no report will be published. ‘My family has to
eat,’ said one of these experimenters. ‘My institution would
object,’ said another. ‘Every member of my department
would criticize me, and I am in line for the chairman-
ship.’” Truly scirntists can be very “human” a t times!
(From condensation of Rhine’s book, T h e Rench of the
M i r ~ d ,in The Render’s Digest, February, 1948).
3. Coizcernirzg the Inadepacies of EvolzLtioizisnz (that
is, to explain what it is supposed to explain). Evolution-
ism, let us remember, is the theory of euolutioiq, frequently
designated the euolzstioiz hypothesis. In the terminology of
science a hypothesis ranks below a theory in validity, and
both hypothesis and theory attain the stature of a law
only when after a long period of testing their validity is
established by apparently incontrovertible evidence. The
334
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
theory of evolution fails to account adequately for many
of t h e facts of huinaii observation, experience, and geiieral
knowledge. Among these are tlie following: (1) The
origin of /ife; spontaneous generation may be considered a
possibility tkcoretically, but as yet no direct evidence has
been brought to light to prove that it ever actually
happened. As Spallaiizaiii ( 1729- 1799) explained, “Even
microbes must have parents,” and all tlie thaiilis lie got
for his discovery was ostracism by tlie medical society of
Europe. ( 2 ) The life i i ~ o u e i ~ ~ eitself:
nt tlie underlying
force, or whateve one may call it, t h a t brings about cell
segmeiitatioii (and growth) plus differentiation as to
structure and specialization as to function. “Protoplasmic
irritability” is a grandiose term which reminds us of John
Loch’s definition of matter as “something-I-know-not-
what.” ( 3 ) The t~aiisii~issioi~ of iiiodifiratioiis: the pro-
cess by which a variation in a parent orgaiiisiii becomes
embodied in tlie reproductive cells, tlie oiily media (the
genes) by which it can be passed on to offspring. Genes
are defined as the determiners of heredity; still and all,
they are hypothetical in the sense of eluding sense percep-
tion. (4) The vast gap between the intelligence poteiitial
of maii aud that of any kiiowii animal species extant 01‘
extinct. This gap has led many scientists to take tlie posi-
tion that inan’s appearance on the scene must have been
a mutation. Mali is not just animal: he is animal $/us, and
it is tlie plus t h a t specifies him as inan. Hence tlie folly
of trying to explain tlie person as a biological creature
exclusively; as Chestertoii says (EM, 17) : “It is exactly
when we regard man as a n animal t h a t we know he is not
a n animal.” (li) The cause 01’ nz7ifations: tlie appearaiice
of new forms as wholes as a result of sudden jumps in
the process, forms which continue to “breed true” from
the time of their “emergence.” As a matter of fact, iiiuta-
tioiis have all tlie appearance of special creations, what some
have called tlie insertion of new iiicreineiits of power into
33J
 GENESIS
the Creative Process, (Cosmic rays have been found to
produce mutations in fruit flies) . Evolutionism simply
could not be validated in any form without mutations.
And is it not fortunate that these alleged mutations oc-
curred in a sequence which supports the concept of progres-
sive development of species? And does not this fact in
itself presuppose direction of the whole process-if it
actually occurred-by an intelligent Designer? (cf, Isa.
46:8-11). (6) Tble origin of sex differences. Evolution-
ism is unable t o give us a satisfactory account of this fact
on which the preservation and continuance of all living
species is based, (It is interesting to note here that the
Genesis Narrative of the Creation is silent regarding the
origin of females among subhuman orders, with the sole
exception of the implication in Gen. 1:22; it is the human
female, Woman, to whom our attention is especially di-
rected in Scripture), (7) T h e Mendeliun laws o f heredity.
These “laws,” like all the laws of the sciences, are descrip-
tive. They are not in any sense explanatory of the w h y
of the inter-relationships of the factors involved.
(8) T h e umuziizg variety of highly developed special
orguns which serve the needs of the respective species in
which they function, e.g., wings, feathers, fur; eyes, ears
and other physical sense organs; tusks, antennae, hooves;
fins and gills and electric organs of fishes, poison glands
and fangs of snakes; the “radar” mechanism of bats; migra-
tory sense of birds, etc. These are too numerous and too
multifarious even to try to list them all here. They are
et
explained” by evolutionists in terms of adaptation to en-
vironment: thus the term “adaptation” has become a kind
of linguistic factotum brought in to ccexplainyy the unex-
plainable. Think of the innumerable possibilities of varia-
tions which may take place retrogressiuely as well as pro-
gressively. So many imponderables (immeasurable factors)
are said t o be involved, such as so-called natural selection,
sexual selection, artificial selection, variable prolificity of
336
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
species, hereditary processes, inutations, t h e role of t h e germ
plasm, etc. Regardless of t h e time element wliich may be
assumed, no one knows the precise how, much less the
w/!y, of these mysteries (not even how the phychical takes
hold of t h e physical and moves it, as happens every time a
m a n takes a walls). The fact is t h a t evolutionists enibalm
all these mysteries in a crust of academic jargon t h a t ex-
plains little or nothing in the concrete, wiving a t their
pontifical pronounceinents by inferences t h a t are unverifi-
able in fact. (After all, the term “hypothesis” is just a
sophisticated term for a fairly respectable guess) .
( 9 ) The fact o f instinct, of t h e almost inconceivable
manifoldness of instinctive responses, in subhuman orders.
E.g., the lifetime journey of salmon, the wonderland of
ants, the mating dance of the scorpion, cicadian rhythms
(“biological cloclss”) , bird migrations, migratory sense of
<C
homing” pigeons, etc. Some of these are so fantastic as
to be almost inconceivable. Indeed instinct has rightly
been called “the Great Sphinx of Nature.” If complexity
of instinct were to be made the criterion of t h e classifica-
tion of living forms in an ascending order, it is obvious that
the lowly Insecta would stand a t the head of t h e list, and
that man, poor man, would be somewhere near t h e bottom.
I recommend especially a book entitled Maiwels a v d
Mysteries of ow A7~inza1Wodd ( a book put on t h e mar-
ket recently by The Reader’s Digest Association), also the
following statemeiits.which appear in a sketch of the con-
tent of the book prepared for advertising purposes, to
emphasize the subject under consideration here (the special-
ized organs and instincts of subhuman species) : “The
wonderful zoo of our planet is unique. In all of space
there is no other giraffe than ours, no aardvark, and 110
gliding sea-horse, for nature does not repeat her experi-
ments with life. These wonderful creatures are ours.
They belong to the earth and we belong to them. Man
moves through this parade of life, specialized in brain and
337
 GENESIS
dexterity-but still primitive in many ways. We cannot
gnaw down trees or run on one toe. But we can make
sense out of seeming chaos. And we can use our eyes to
see the beautiful spotted fawn in the glade, the oriole
swinging in its basket nest, a thousand spangled butterflies
trembling on a tree limb. And, seeing these, we know the
miracle of the animals we live with. Here, in this excite-
ing Reader’s Digest volume, the miracle comes alive! We
learn the methods of the insect magician who invented a
baffling trick-light without heat. We get a close-up of
that engineering genius, the busy beaver-a good family
man and a peaceful chap; we follow the monarch butter-
fly on an incredible 2000-mile journey, get an intimate
view of “the bounder with the built-in pocket,” learn why
elephants are almost humaiz (and why they’re not!), 1001r
twice a t an ostrich (look once, then look o u t ! ) , and thrill
to the story of the friendly sea otter’s comeback!” Truly,
instinct is the Great Sphinx of Nature! Through its magic
powers the Divine Intelligence secures the preservation of
all species in relation to their respective needs and to human
needs in particular.
( l o ) T h e role of the artificial iiz relntioig t o the “izat-
ZLY&.” Simpson (ME, 139, 140) : “It is still false t o con-
clude that man is nothiizg bzLt the highest animal, or the
most progressive product of organic evolution. He is also
a fundamentally new sort of animal, and one in which,
although organic evolution continues on its way, a funda-
mentally new sort of evolution has also appeared. The
basis of this new sort of evolution is a new sort of heredity,
the inheritance of learning. This sort of heredity appears
modestly in other mammals and even lower in the animal
kingdom, but in man it has incomparably fuller develop-
ment and it combines with man’s other characteristics
unique in degree with a result that cannot be considered
unique only in degree but must also be considered unique
in kind. . . . This new evolution peculiar to man operates
338
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
directly by the iiiheritance of acquired characters, of
lriiowledge and learned activities which arise in and are
contiiiually a part of a n organismic-enviroiiineiital system,
t h a t of social orgaiiizatioii.” We must admit our ainaze-
iiieiit a t this concession by the writer of the most recently
produced “Bible of the evolutionists.” That is to say,
geiierally speaking, artificial selection plirs societal selection
has talreii over t h e future developinelit of t h e evolutionary
process. Yes, iiiaii is iiniqitc i77 Jziiid-no doubt of it!
If he were not, Siinpson would never have written his
book eiititled The Meaiiiiig of Evolution. Moreover, this
uiiiqueness in kind proves our point, nainel y, t h a t artificial
selection is of a different and higher order, aiid cannot
rightly be included in what is generally called ‘‘natural”
selection. This certainly leaves fhe gap befweeiz the two
kiiids to be accoiiiifed for, mid so desfitoys the notion of uii-
brokeii contiiiiiity of the alleged pipogwssive developiiieiit!
But even though mind and its activities are now con-
sidered as eleinents of what is called Yiature,” the fact
remains t h a t the artificial, and t h e so-called societal alleged
to be resulting from it, is iiot t h e pel? se natural. More-
over, by definition, and by facts of human experience as
well, artificial selection certainly proceeds according to the
purposes of directing minds. Indeed, t h e concept of pur-
poses, designs, ends, is implicit in the very word ccselection,”
in whatever form t h a t “selection” may be hypothesized.
Thus inutations (of which inan is now frequently said to
have been one) , resultiiig in progressively higher (more
complex) forms, point unmistakably (as Trueblood, quoted
above, insists) to a directing Divine Intelligence.
(11) The general noii-feiMify o f hybrids. This fact,
it seems, would militate against the evolution hypothesis.
Moreover, subhuinaii nature, when left to its own resour-
ces, seeins to deteriorate rather than to advance. A n y
gardener knows t h a t tomatoes produced by properly culti-
vated plaiits are always superior to those which are pro-
3 39
 GENESIS
duced by seed or plant in what is called “volunteer”
fashion. (12) The modus operaizdi of emergence. T h e
simple truth is that no one Knozus h o w n n e w species
emerges or could emerge. As Alfred Russel Wallace once
remarked to Darwin: Your theory will account for the
survival of an existing species, but it does not account for
the nrrivnl of a new species. This statement is as true
today as it was when spoken almost one hundred years ago.
As a matter of fact, all the theories of the method of
evolution taken together still do not bring 11s any nearer to
the solution of the basic problem of emergence. Vocifer-
ous and dogmatic affirmations are never substitutes for
facts. Moreover, evolutioiz is largely wariafiofl, and varin-
tion m a y occur regressively as well us progressively. EUO~ZL-
tion mny “roll out” dozuizzunrd ns well as upward.
4. Concerning Materialistic Evolutionisiig. ( 1) This is the
doctrine that all things have evolved by accident or chance
(that is, pzLrposelesSness) . Devotees of this cult simply
refuse to acknowledge Efficient Causality of any kind in
the origin and preservation of the cosmos, with the possible
exception of some form or forms of primal physical
energy: they rest their case on the eternity of matter-in-
motion. (Obviously this primal impersonal energy is their
“god.”) With disarming simplicity they proceed to de-
scribe all phenomena of the cosmos, including those of the
life processes and the thought processes, in terms of a
e<
fortuitous concourse of atoms” (or sub-atomic forces) ,
Materialistic evolution is usually described as “mechanistic.”
The word “mechanism,” however, has a question-begging
aspect. Machines are contrivances, but as far as human
experience goes, they are contrivances invented by some in-
telligent agent to serve some function, to gain some specific
end. Moreover, anyone who insists that the cosmos is just
a great machine, is simply reading into his understanding
of it the properties and powers that he himself sees in a
mncbine. Evolutionists, as a rule, dislike to be called
3 40
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
materialists: they prefer to be known as iialfu~ulisfs,that
is, essentially, deniers of tlie supernatural. However, i t is
obvious froin the point of view of human experience itself
t h a t tlie totality of being was never brought into existence
by huinaii agency: as a matter of fact, man was the last
species to put in appearance. Therefore, ccnature,J’whether
supernatural or not, is certainly su$er/3~~~izuii. Materialistic
evolutioiiists reject theism, the doctrine of a God who is
Spirit (personal, John 4:24) : tlie only God who could be
responsive to human inclination and need. (2) The Chris-
tian cannot, of course, accept materialistic evolutionism,
because it directly contradicts the Biblical doctrine of the
sovereignty and eternal purpose of God (Isa. 46:9-11; Acts
15:18, 17:30-31; 1 Cor. 1j:20-28; Eph. 3:s-12). Nor is
there any special reason why any Christian, or any other
intelligent person, should accept it. In the first place,
any unbiased person can readily see that the phenomena
of personality (perception, consciousness, and especially
71zeuning) are not entirely reducible, if reducible a t all, t o
matter-in-motion. In the second place, materialistic evolu-
tionism cannot be harmonized with the fact of cos7izic
order. This order is clearly evident (a) from the mathe-
matical relations characteristic of the processes of the physi-
cal world and the mathematical formulae by which they
are amenable to precise description; (b) from the manifold
interrelationships of ends and means, as empirically dis-
cerned, prevailing throughout the totality of being; (c)
froin the over-all adaptation of nature to human life and
its needs. As stated heretofore, the word COS~IZOSmeans
order; lacking this order, human science would be forever
impossible, for the simple reason that science is man’s dis-
covery and description of tlie order which he finds to
prevail in the various segments of the natural world.
Surely this architectonic order presupposes a Supreme
Orderer, a directing Mind and Will. It i s iiicoiiceivable
that sheer chuiice coicld have p ~ o d u c e dthe order we see all
341
 GENESIS
n7ozLnd us. To ndopt this v i e w requires infinitely more
f a i t h than is required to accept the Etertzal Purpose of the
sovereign God.
5 . Concerning Theistic Evolzhonism. This is the view,
stated in simplest terms, that evolution is God’s method of
creation. Under this view, the important question for us
is this: Can theistic evolutionism be harmonized with
Biblical teaching, in particular with the Genesis Narratives
of the Creation and the Fall? There are many well-
informed and sincerely religious persons who hold that
theistic evolutionism “properly stated” (that is, within
certain limitations) is not necessarily in conflict with the
teaching of Genesis, if the latter is also “constructively
interpreted.’’ I n the exposition of this general view, the
student is advised to consider the following matters of
importance:
(1 ) There is a clear correspondence between the Genesis
Cosmogony and present-day scientific thought on many
points. (See my Genesis, Volume I, Part X, for a list of
these harmonies).
( 2 ) It must always be kept in mind that the major aim
of the Genesis Cosmogony, and indeed of the whole Bible,
is to tell us who made the cosmos, and not how it was
made. It was what God said that “was so,” that is, that
“was done” (Gen. 1:3, 7 , 11, 15, 21, 25; Psa. 33:6, 9 ;
Psa. 148:6) , but the inspired writer makes no effort what-
soever to inform us as to how it was done. It is clear
that the narrative is intended to be a religious, and not a
scientific account of the Creation.
( 3 ) There is nothing in the Genesis text that constrains
us to accept the ultra-literal view that God spoke all
living species into existence a t one and the same time. On
the contrary, according to the narrative itself, the activity
of Creation was extended over six “days” and a fraction
of the seventh. This is true, however we may see fit to
interpret the word “day.”
3 42
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
(4) In the Genesis narrative itself, the teaching is im-
plicit-if not actually explicit-that in creating the cosmos
and all things in it, God operated through “secondary
causes” (“laws of nature”) as well as through primary
causation (direct action). This is evident from such
statements as these: “Let the earth put forth grass,” etc.
(v. 1 1 ) , “Let the waters swarin with swarms of living
creatures,” etc. (v. 2 0 ) , “Let t h e earth bring forth living
creatures,” etc. (v. 24), and even from t h e earlier decrees
with reference to non-living forms of being, “Let there
be light” (v. 3 ) , “Let there be a firmament in the midst
of the waters” (v. 6 ) , “Let the waters under the heavens
be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land
appear” (v. 9 ) . In Scripture, God is pictured as exercis-
ing His power directly in some cases and with immediate
results (e.g., Exo. 17:5-7; Lev. 1O:l-2; Num. 16:31 ff.;
2 IG. 4:2-7; 2 Chron. 26:16-21; Matt. 8:24-27, 9:18-26,
12-13; Mark 8 : l - 1 0 ; Luke 17:ll-19, 22:50-51; John
2:1-11, 11:38-44; Acts 3:1-10, 8:6-8, 9:32-42, 13:11,
16:16-18, 19:ll-12, 20:9-12; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; IThess.
4:13:17), and in other instances as achieving His ends
gradually or by what is called “progressive development”
(Gal. 3:8, Heb. 1:l-3, 1 Pet. 1:10-12, Isa. 28:P-10, Mark
4:26-29, Psa. 90:4, 2 Pet. 3:8). Divine action by fiat
simply means t h a t God decrees a thing to be done and it
is done, but does not necessarily indicate how it is done or
how 1071g a time is involved in the doing of it ( h a .
148:1-6). We must never forget t h a t time means nothing
to God, t h a t His realm (eternity) is that of tiiizelessi~.ess.
We always get into difficulties when we drag our concepts
of mathematical time into the area of God’s timeless activity
(2 Cor. 4: 1 8 ) . We see no reason for rejecting the view
that God, whose Will is the constitution of the cosmos
and its processes, should operate through t h e majesty and
the sovereign power of His own established decrees. All
343
 GENESIS
law presupposes a lawgiver; therefore what we call Yaws
of nature” presuppose the Mind and Will of the Divine
Lawgiver.
( S ) Certainly the weight of all the evidence available,
as explained in Volume One of this textbook series, is in
support of the view that the “days” of the Genesis account
were not solar days, but aeonic days; that is, indefinite
periods of time. Thus it may be conceded that the Genesis
narrative of the Creation can be thought of as allowing
for all the time the evolutionists may see fit to muster up
theomreticallyin support of their theory.
( 6 ) Evidently Infinity in God has no reference to any
kind of magnitude because God is a Spirit (John 4:24);
rather, the term designates the inexhaustible Source of
Power by which the cosmos was created and is sustained
in its processes (Psa. 148 :S -6, 3 3 :6, 9 ) . Hence the problem
before us is not one of power, but one of wethod. What
method, then, did the Creator employ? Was Creation a
1ong:drawn-out process of progressive development, or was
it a process of actualization in a very brief time-span?
But, after all, what significant difference does it make,
whether it was the one or the other? Whether the Crea-
tion extended over six or seven solar days, or over six or
seven aeonic days, the same meaxsure of Creative Power
w o u l d have been necessary in either case. (See again our
conclusion in Volume I, p. 5 9 5 )e

6. Con,cerizing Euolufionisnz and the Navrative of the

Fall.
(1) The first question that comes to our attention here
is that o i relevance. With respect to the Genesis narra-
tives any human theory of origins, I should say, is to ‘a
large extent irrelevant, for various reasons: ( a ) because
Genesis is pre-scientific chronologically, that is, it came
into existence before human science had reached any sig-
nificant stage of development, (b) because the book was
composed for moral and spiritual ends only, ( c ) because
3 44
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
the subject-matter is presented in bold outlines only, de-
signed to give us a panoramic picture of t h e order of t h e
Creation without regard t o details, and (d) hence, is not
entirely irreconcilable with evolutionism of a kind which
allows for t h e continuous and directed operation of Divine
Power by t h e Divine Mind and Will. T h e religious truths
emphasized in the book are not affected to any great extent
by the scientific theory characteristic of any age. Hence,
whether the Genesis account of the Creation, or that of
the Fall, is scientific or not, is a false issue, The accounts
were not designed to be such; as a matter of fact, no
account of origins could be written that would always
be in harmony with shifting scientific thought. T o attack
Genesis from t h e point of view t h a t it must be in harmony
with every detail of present-day scientific theory is to
manifest either profound ignorance of the whole subject,
and of Scripture especially, or probably a perverted will
that raises false issues solely to discount the Biblical record.
The astonishing fact is t h a t the correspondence between
Bible teaching and present-day scientific theory is greater
than a t any other time in the entire history of human
thought. (This affirmation I am willing to defend a t any
time anywhere.) It would almost seem that the Holy
Spirit looked down through the ages and gave us the
facts regarding origins t h a t would ultimately come to be in
close harmony with direct human experience and with the
most advtnced secular science. (See again my Genesis,
Volume I, Part X.)
( 2 ) No scientific theory, evolutionism included, has
ever cast any valid doubt on the facts presented in Genesis
in y e man, his origin, nature, and destiny, as known by
means of human experience itself, such as t h e following:
(a) that as to nature, he is a spirit-body (psychosomatic)
unity, a corporeal frame vitalized by the Breath of God
(Gen. 2 : 7 ) ; ( b ) t h a t he has advanced far beyond the
brute stage; ( c ) that he had a beginning as the handiwork
345
 GENESIS
of a Creative Process (Intelligence and Will) which ante-
dated him and which had already prepared the natural
world and its orders, both non-living and living, for his
entrance into it and his sojourn in it (otherwise their
existence would have no meaning whatsoever) ; (d) that,
as to his moral state, he is endowed with the power of
choice, and hence is inherently capable of both good and
evil; (e) that by virtue of this choice, his state is one of
moral responsibility; and ( f ) that he is prone to do evil,
to rebel against authority, even to try t o play God; (g)
that somewhere along the line, and somehow, he acquired
a conscience.
( 3 ) Centainly conscience came into being potentially
when reason was actualized in the first homo sapiens. (Is
not this power of thought the factor that validates the
use of the term homo sapiens by the scientists?) Evidently,
conscience became actualized when that which is designate’d
the natural moral law-the law which is promulgated in
human nature and in human natural relationships-was
first violated by hmzo sGpiens. (Cf. Psa. 8:3-9, Gen.
2:18-25, Rom. 2:14-16). And certainly in the third
chapter of Genesis, we have the account of the birth of
conscience in man, whatever else may be implicit in this
Narrative of the Fall. It will be recalled that Alexander
Campbell describes this tragedy as a fall from man’s
original natural state into his present unnatural state.
(Evil was never intended to be a part of man’s natural
state), Strong (ST, 658) : “The translation of Enoch and
Elijah, and of the saints that remain a t Christ’s second
coming, seems intended to teach that death is not a neces-
sary law of organized being, and to show what would have
happened to Adam if he had been obedient. He was
created a ‘natural,’ ‘earthly’ body, but might have attained
a higher being, the ‘spiritual,’ heavenly, body without the
intervention of death. Sin, however, has turned the
normal condition of things into the rare exception (cf, 1
346
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
Cor. 15:42-J0). Siiice Christ endured death as the penalty
of sin, deatli to the Christian becomes tlie gateway through
which lie eiiters into full coininunioii with his Lord.” That
is to say, in Adam the ‘natural,’ had he continued upright
(in unbroken obedience t o God) , might without deatli-
by tlie process of traiisfiguration-have attained t h e ‘spiri-
tual’ (cf. Gen. J:24, 2 IG. 2:11, Dan. 12:3, Matt. 17:l-3,
Acts 26:12-15, 1 Thess. 4:13-17, 1 Cor. 1 5 : 5 0 - 5 5 , Rom.
2:7, 1 Tim. 6:14-16).
( 3 ) At this point let us heed words of caution from the
pen of one of our pioneers, D. R. Dugaii ( H e m . , 47)
as follows: “Before any man is ready to say that the Bible
and science are iiot agreed, he should know two things:
first, he should know all about tlie Bible; and second, he
should know all about science. I n t h e meantime, tlie best
thing lie can do will be t o learn all lie can of either one
or both. It is not to be denied t h a t we may know some
things, a t least approximately, and that so far as facts
have been really introduced and tested, we may be gov-
erned by them, just to the extent of our absolute knowl-
edge. But no interpreter should trouble himself to make
exegesis keep up with scientific hypotheses. Science has no
more right to lord it over religion than religion has to
lord it over science. He who made the universe made
the Bible, and when we come t o understand them both, we
will be delighted with their beautiful harmony. And it is,
therefore, the privilege and duty of every man to push his
investigations as far and as fast as lie can.” Truth (John
8:31-32, 17:17) may be said to exist in three forms,
namely, ( a ) t h a t which is, by its very nature, forever
hidden froin inan (Deut. 29:29), (b) t h a t which is neither
hidden nor revealed, but is embodied in t h e very structure
of the universe, both physical and moral, for niaii by study
and rese.arch (science) slowly to spell out through the
centuries (Gen. 1 :28) ; and ( c ) t h a t which is revealed for
man’s acceptance and ultimate redemption in spirit and
347
 GENESIS
soul and body (Eph. 1:3-14, 3:l-12; 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 1
Thess. 2:13; Heb. 1:l-4;1 Pet. 1:10-12). The Bible has
no antagonism toward, no fear of, tracth in any f o r m .
(4) With special referewe now to the evolaction h y -
pofhesis in relation to the Narrative of the Fall, ( a ) I must
say, in the first place, that I cannot agree with one state-
ment which occurs above (in the excerpt appearing a t the
beginning of this Part of our text), namely, that “man
began perfect.” True it is that, as to natuye, ie., as a
psychosomatic unity, he (Adam) was perfect, in the strict
sense of the term as meaning “whole” or “complete” IFS u
person (Gen. 1:27, 2:7;cf. what is said of Jesus in Heb.
1:3 ) ; as to chmactew, however, that is, morally speaking,
he was created innocent, but with the potentiality of
achieving perfection (holiness) by his own voluntary sted-
fastness in obedience to the Will of God. Indeed, this is
the only way of attaining holiness that is possible to any
intelligent being (Matt. 5 : g J 5:48,7:13-14,7:24-27;Rom.
2:4-11, 14:17; Heb. 10:10,.12:14;2 Pet. 3:18J etc.). As
a consequence of the fall into sin, Adam and his entire
,posterity (Rom. 3:23) must achieve holiness in the same
way, but3 in what may properly be designated “the hard
way” (Eph. 6:12-18,2 Pet. 2:9-10). (b) It is surely
true that the author of this Narrative of the Fall was not
concerned with science or with any such problem as that
of the correspondence of Biblical teaching and scientific
theory. However, the Holy Spirit, as the ultimate Author,
could surely have embodied the account in such general
terms, such bold outlines, as to make it harmonious with
scientific thought, and especially with the science of our
own times. This appears to be the case in fact: the sole
purpose of the account is religious; hence we have in this
Narrative the record of what happens to every human
being as he passes from a state of innocence into that of
the actual experience of sin in his own life; and this indeed
may be all that the Spirit intended to teach us by it.
348
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
Perhaps He left t h e how of the matter for human science
to spell out as best it can. But t h e fact remains t h a t the
Fall, as pictured in Genesis, was indeed a fall from an
original state of innocence into t h a t of the actual experi-
ence of sin and t h e gvilf t h a t accompanies t h a t experience.
This is about all we can say about it: and in this sense
the Fall was w a l , both in itself and in its tragic come-
quences. Moreover, the very fact, born of universal ex-
perience, t h a t man is in sin, prone to evil of all kinds,
simply callnot be denied by any intelligently honest person.
It is tragically-and often gruesomely-apparent in daily
newspaper accounts of rape, incest, sex perversions, devil-
worship, thrill murders, deceit, treachery, fraud, lawless-
ness of all kinds, not to mention genocide, strife, war, and
violence that fill the earth in our age as in Noah’s time
(Gen, 6 : j , 11, 12; Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27). T o
deny this, and to deny that this is sin, is t o be stupid with
the worst kind of stupidity-that of a closed mind. This
condition must be accounted for, and the most satisfactory
account is that which is given us in the Genesis Narrative
of the Fall.
(d) This writer’s conviction is that the difference be-
tween man and the brute is not oiie of degree, but o m of
kind. However Strong’s theory of Gen. 2:7 as indicating
a “divine reinforcement of the process of life” which
“turned the animal into man,” is to be explained, whether
anthropomorphically ‘ (which certainly is not to be ruled
out) or by mutation (in some manner biologically), it
certainly was of the character of a special creation. More-
over, should Strong’s view be the correct one, bo??zosupieizs
(for obvious reasons I am using the scientific designation
here) is no less homo sapiens, regardless of how he may
have arrived on this terrestrial scene. Moreover, h e has no
known existing ancestors : those huinanoidal f orins which
are supposed t o have existed prehistorically are now extinct,
hence hypothetically identifiable only by isolated sparse
349
 GENESIS
skeletal remains which have been found in different parts
of the world. These remains of alleged prehistoric man
are too fragmentary to allow for any reliable reconstruc-
tion of man’s ancestry from the so-called horninidae. Nor
do these widely scattered skeletal remains necessarily indi-
cate that there were different “centers” of the origin of
h o sapieizs. Again, evolutionists must accept the fact
that there had t o be a space-time locus a t which the tran-
sition from homiizidae to homo sapz’em actually occurred;
and that with the appearance of the latter, as stated above,
reason also appeared, and along with reason, conscience,
which is the voice of practical reason. This means that
all humanoidal forms existing prior to this transition were
not forms of homo sapieizs. The tendency of so many
scientists to pontificate about these humanoidal finds makes
it necessary for us to put their significance in proper
perspective in order that we may not be led astray by
exaggerations.
(e) When man actually first became man, regardless of
what his ancestry may have been, hypothetically or actu-
ally, if there was any such ancestry of course, there was a
change of some kind that could be regarded, I suppose, as
a transition from innocence to awareness of moral law and
the sense of guilt occasioned by violation of that law, and
hence could be designated a “Fall.” Again, it is evident
that what is pictured as having occurred in Adam’s case
is precisely what occurs in the life of every human being
on reaching the age of discretion: and perhaps this is the
most important lesson which the Divine Author would
have us learn from this Narrative, in which He is con-
cerned chiefly, it would seem, with accounting for the
observed fact of man’s rebelliousness and lawlessness. I
have no desire to stretch Scripture out of context, or to
indulge fantastic interpretations, t o force it into conform-
ity with the science of any age, especially in view of this
paramount fact that the design of the Narrative is religious
350
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
and not scientific. I caiiiiot convince myself that man’s
depravity is simply a hang-over of his so-called “animal
heritage”: there is too much evidence from human experi-
ence t h a t his own self-perverted will has much t o do with
his fallen state. To suininarize: the essence of the Fall
was de f a c t o the birth of conscience: had Adam continued
in uiibrokeii obedience t o God lie would never have ex-
perienced the chiding of coiiscience and accoiiipaiiyiiig
sense of guilt. This is about as far as aiiyoiie can go, or
should go, in attempting t o get at the heart of the Genesis
Narrative : whether this caii be harmonized with evolu-
tionism certainly remailis a moot question, B u t t h e essen-
tial truth is miaffected in an31 case: t h a t tmi~this that maii,
is iwfected with the disease of lawlessii,ess, however h e m a y
have caught this iiifection in the f i i p s t place. I shall be
content, therefore, to accept by faith what the Bible
teaches regarding this tragic state which has bef alleii the
whole human race. H u m a n depravity is a f a c t o f experi-
ence: h o w it origiizated iiza3i reiitabn ai1 iiiscrufable iizystery
t o I I Z ~ ~inF . his pi*esent state. Helice, in view of the f a c t
t h a t science has I Z O adequate explaiiatioii. of t k e iizysteiy,
and ceytainby iio adequate wiizedy t o o f f e r to alleviate the
coii.a?itio~z,bet u s be couteiit t o w n l k by f a i t h and so to
accept the Biblical accoi~i~ntand with it the ifiedenaption
which OUI L o d has pipovided f o r all who wibb m e e t the
terms of coveiiavt relatiorzship b y which, and 631 which
alone, w e can appropipiate to ozmelves t h e eteifiial verities
of this Unspeakable Gift (John 3:16, 2 Cor. 9:15, Eph.
2 : 8 , 2 Pet. 1 : 4 ) .
( f ) Perhaps we should consider another possibility a t
this point, one which would seein a t first glance to be far-
fetched, but which “grows on one,” so to speak, as one
mulls it over in thought. I put it in the forin of a ques-
tion as follows: Could it be that we have in the story of
Adam and Eve the account of a special creation of a Mali
aiid a Woinaii as distinct from the evolutioiiary origin of
351
 GENESIS
the race as hypothesized by present-day biologists? Could
Adam and Eve have been created t o head up the physical
creation, in a separate strain that was designed to produce
the Messianic Line and its fulfilment in the Head of the
spiritual creation (Rom. 5 :12-1 5 , 1 Cor. 1 5 :45-49) ?
Could this be intimated in the statements occurring in
Gen. 6: 1-4, with respect to the intermingling of the “sons
of God” with the “daughters of men”? The idea is intri-
guing, to say the least.
(g) Finally, science arbitrarily rejects the “supernatural”
and hence has only evolutionism to resort to as a “natural-
istic” explanation of Creation. However, even though the
complex of causes-and-effects which go to make up “na-
ture” may be said to be “naturalistic,” what would the
Efficient Cause of this entire complex be designated?
Certainly man did not set the cosmos into operation. Shall
we not say, then, that the First Cause, the Cause of all
causes-and-effects, even though conceived as operating
within the framework of what is called “nature,” is
properly designated sz~perrzaturd? Or shall we be content
with the term s u p e r h m a n ? It is inconceivable that the
Efficient Cause of the Totality of Being could be properly
designated ‘‘natural’’ or “naturalistic.’3
In dealing with impressionable high school and college
students who have been brainwashed into uncritical devo-
tion to evolutionism, I try to impress upon them, first of
all, that in studying this subject w e are n o t dealing with
f a c t , but with theoyy. I try t o impress upon their minds
the motivation, the antibiblical, even antireligious, bias
which inspires the misplaced zeal manifested by devotees
of the theory, pointing up the a priori assumptions, the
verbose and extravagant, and even dogmatic, statements,
and the play on words, all of which characterizes their
methodology of promulgation. I try most of all to show
them that the arguments which are marshaled to support
the theory are basically inferential, and that grave doubts
3 52
 EVOLUTIONISM A N D THE FALL
exist t h a t tlie inference is logically or empirically necessaqi
inference. I try to show them t h a t m y objections to
evolutionism, however, are based largely on the unscientific
methodology t h a t is used to promote it, and, as a matter
of fact, its lack of genuine scieiitif ic corroboration; that
I object to i t even more o n this score than on t h e supposi-
tion t h a t it is in conflict with Biblical teaching. I empha-
size t h e fact t h a t t h e Bible, after all, was written in pre-
scientific times, and solely for the purpose of presenting
t o man the ~ e l i g i o i ~truth
s with respect t o his nature, origin
and destiny; and the most amazing fact of all, namely,
that its teaching, including especially t h a t of the book of
Genesis, corresponds in so many particulars t o present-day
scientific thinking. I urge them to study the pros and
cons of t h e theory critically, and, even though accepting
it provisionally, to await further developments in the area
of the life sciences, holding to a sharp distinction especially
between f u c t and iizf erence, and under no circumstances
t o allow it to disturb, much less destroy, their confidence
in the Bible or their Christian faith. (See my Geizesis,
Volume One, for my own general conclusions (pp. 795,
600, 6 0 1 ) , for Dr. James Jauncey’s comments on the
theory of evolution (pp. 473, 573), and for discussions of
the Tree of Life and tlie Tree of Knowledge (pp. 509ff.,
and pp. 5 14ff.), respectively.)
>$ :$ :$ >: :
:

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART SIXTEEN

1. State the problem of tlie relation of evolutionism and
the Genesis account of the Fall.
2, Distinguish between materialistic evolution and theistic
evolution.
3 . Summarize t h e material presented in t h e first para-
graph of this Part o n the alleged conflict between
evolutionism and the Genesis account of the Fall.
4. Summarize Strong’s defense of theistic evolution.
 GENESIS
5. State Trueblood’s theory of the significance of evolu-
tionism in relation to the doctrine of God.
6. Summarize the general attitude of confirmed evo-
lutionists toward the Bible and toward religion in
general.
7. What do we mean when we say that in this attitude
“the wish is father to the thought”?
8. What is the arbitrary assumption which underlies all
scientific research?
9. How is this problem of the Bible and science affected
by “over-specialization” in the various fields of knowl-
edge?
10. Show how excessive zeal leads to extravagant assertions
in support of evolutionism, as illustrated in the ex-
cerpts from Bryan’s lecture.
11. Are confirmed evolutionists willing to accept the views
of those who find harmony between evolutionism and
the Genesis Narratives?
12. Why do we affirm that evolutionism is a faith rather
than a fact?
13. Show how the arguments presented to support evolu-
tionism are inferentid rather than factual.
14. How is the teaching of Heb. 11:3, and that of 2 Pet.
3 :1-7, related to evolutionism?
15. Explain what is meant by the genetic fallacy, and show
how it is erroneous.
16. State Thompson’s view about the effect of evolution-
ism on the intellectual integrity of scientists.
17. What does Dr. Rhine have to say on this point?
18. List and explain what we call the “inadequacies” of
evolutionism.
19. Discuss the problems of sex difference, mutations,
specialized organs, heredity, instinct, artificial selection,
and non-fertility of hybrids, in relation to evolutionism.
20. Would you say that anyone can explain how a new
species can emerge? Explain your answer.
3 54
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
2 1, Why do we reject materialistic evolution?
22, State the facts by which this rejection is substantiated,
23. List the grounds on which theistic evolutionists defend
their view.
24. Explain what is meant by relevance in dealing with
the problem of evolutionism and the Fall.
25. List the facts presented in Genesis about man which
are generally accepted by scientists.
26. Explain t h e relatioii between the appearance of the
first h071zo sapiens and the birth of conscience.
27. What does t h e term homo sapiens mean?
2 8. Review Campbell’s theory of t h e n a t i ~ ~ a l7,/ 1 i i i a f u ~ a / ,
and jwfeivfatural states of man.
29. Show how Strong’s view coincides with t h a t of Mr,
Campbell.
30. State Dungan’s word of caution about attempting to
make Biblical teaching conform to the scientific theo-
ries of any age?
31. Would you say t h a t man could have attained immor-
tality without falling into sin?
32. If your answer is in the affirmative, how-would you
say-could he have done this?
33. In what sense was man created perfect?
34. Was he created morally perfect, or only with the
potentiality of attaining moral perfection (holiness) ?
Give reasons for your answer.
35. What do we mean when we say t h a t he was created
innocent?
36. Would you say t h a t t h e change from innocence to one
of the activity of conscience could be regarded as the
Fall? Explain your answer.
37. State our general conclusions about t h e relation be-
tween the evolution theory and the Genesis Narrative
of the Fall.
38. T o what extent, would you say, can they (1) be
355
 GENESIS
harmonized, ( 2 ) not be harmonized. Explain your
answers.
39. What basic truths about man’s moral state does the
Author of the Genesis Narrative seek to impress upon
us ?
40. Why do we take the position that the difference be-
tween man and the brute is not one of degree, but one
of Kind?
41. What essential change took place when man truly
became homo sapiens?
42. Is it possible to fully explain man’s depravity as the
hang-over of his so-called “animal heritage”? If not,
why not?
43. Can it be said unequivocally that the Cause of all
causes-and-effects which go to make up the Totality
of Being simply cannot be designated ccnatural’’ or
C<
naturalistic” ?
44. In view of the fact that science has no adequate expla-
nation of man’s rebelliousness, what attitude should the
sensible person take with regard to it?
45. What does it mean to wulk by faith in this present
world?
:+ :c :t. :c :t.

The following summarization of evolutionism and its

status in scientific thinking today appeared in an issue of
the El Paso T i m e s not so long ago. It was written (in
answer to a reportorial questionnaire) by Dr. Thomas G.
Barnes, Director of the Schellenger Research Laboratory, El
Paso. With Dr. Barnes’ permission I reproduce it here be-
cause I consider it an excellent presentation of the subject.
“1. What is the theory of evolution? It is the theory
that all plants, animals, and man have descended from very
simple types: roses from algae, peacocks from amoeba, etc.
“2. Has science shown evolution t o be a fact? No. It is
only theory. No real scientist can honestly classify it as
a fact.
3 56
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
“ 3 . Do all scientists subscribe to t h e theory? No, Many
scientists do, but thousands of reputable scientists do not.
Over a hundred research scientists, representing various
fields of successful scientific accomplishment, have recently
joined together t o re-evaluate science from t h e viewpoint
of creation as opposed t o evolution.
“4. Natural selection (survival of the fittest, etc.) is
supposed to be the means by which evolution works. Is
there any evidence t h a t natural selection has produced
evolutionary change in the lifetime of any observer? No.
“li. Can the selection process be speeded up artificially?
Yes.
“ 6 . Can artificial selection produce changes? Yes.
Variations are observed, but no true evolution has been
observed.
“7. What is the difference between variation and evolu-
tion? Variation is change within restricted limits. It may
include change in size, color, texture, etc. This type of
change is common. Evolution, in principle, could cause
change without limit. For true evolution to take place,
a simple organism would have to change to a more com-
plex organism: fish t o land vertebrate, etc. This has never
been proved.
“8. Have any experiments with artificial selection been
carried to their limits, Yes. There have been many such
experiments.
“9, Give an illustration of such experiments. The proc-
ess of artificial selection in sugar beets was pursued to its
limit in an experiment which began in 1800. Only t h e
seeds from the sweetest beets in each crop were planted
for the next crop. By 1878 by this selective process the
beets had increased in sugar content from 6% t o 17%,
but this was the ultimate. No further increase in sugar
content was attained even though the experiment was
continued 40 years more, Variation had been produced,
but no evolution.
357
 GENESIS
“1 0. Does this ultimate limit of variation indicate that
there are barriers to true evolution? Yes.
“11. Does the fossil record confirm the limits to the
variation on each type of plant or animal? The fossil
record indicates barriers, not continuous evolution.
“12. Can evolution be classified as a law? No. Me
have already mentioned that it is only theory. Laws have
to be consistent with all the evidence. Evolution is not
supported by satisfactory evidence.
“13. Is evolution consistent with the most accepted phys-
ical laws? No. The laws of thermodynamics contradict
the theory of evolution. Attempts by evolutionists to
show that living matter is not governed by the laws of
thermodynamics have not been successfd.
“14. Is evolution based on the probable or the improb-
able? O n the improbable. The knowledgeable evolutionist
admits that it is based on the improbable, but he says that
if it is given enough time the improbable will happen. He
uses the time element as an excuse fo,r the failure of all
experiments to verify without qualification any phase of
evolution (as distinguished from variation) .”
:E >b b: b: :c

It will be recalled that Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher

(1632-1677), set out in his Etbicu to deal with the prob-
lems of how an immaterial Being (God) could create a
material universe, only to “explain away” the problem a t
the end, simply by identifying God with the world, nature,
the universe, etc. (the totality of being). His system was
a rigid pantheism which “explained” little or nothing in re
the basic problem with which he was trying to deal.
I n like manner, in recent years, the late French priest-
scientist-philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, in his
principal works, T h e Divine Milieu and The Phenomenon
of M a n , created a stir of some proportions in the academic
world by undertaking to explain the modus operandi of
evolution (as did Bergson earlier in his work entitled
358
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
Creative Evoliifioii ) . Teilliard envisions evolution through
a gradation of forins, from atomic particles u p to human
beings, in ever increasing complexity of structure, and
along with it, the developinent of coiisciousness (Bergson
uses the twin “Spirit”). The result is a kind of P a n - j w j -
chisii?. Mali is tlie focal point in whom all facets of t h e
evolutionary process converge, aiid in inan reflective
thought finally emerges. The unique feature of Teilliard’s
system is his concept t h a t tlie ultimate reality of this
cosmic developineiit is t h e Incarnate Clirist (not t h e
“Superman” of Nietzsclie, nor that of Samuel Butler, nor
that of Shaw’s Mali aiid Siikeifiiiiaii or his Back t o Mefhii-
selab), but the God-Man, who ultimately gathers all things
up into Himself and truly becomes all in d l . “The only
universe,” says Teilhard, “capable of containing t h e human
person is a n irrevocably ‘personalizing’ universe.” Again :
<‘In one manner or tlie other, i t still remains true tliaz,
even in the view of t h e mere biologist, the hutnan epic
resembles iiotliiiig so inucli as a way of the Cross” (I‘M,
290, 311). Like t h a t of Bergson, Teilhard’s system was
a n holiest effort to describe the modzis opeitandi of t h e
evolutioiiary process. However, we are safe in saying that
both Bergson and Teilhard have failed to explain how a
new species emerges-indeed how novelty of a n y kind
enters into the process-just as Spiiioza failed to explain
how an iminaterial God could have created this material
world. Obvioiisly, these aire mysteries which lie h r ~ w i d
the scoiw of h i m a n coiii~i~ehei?sion(Job 11:7, Isa. 5 5 :8 -
9 ) . Nevertheless Teilhard’s presentation is suf ficieritly
intriguing to merit a n analysis of it, in its main outlines,
for whatever it may be worth to t h e student, One thing
can be said in its favor: it has received little but scorn,
and even sneers, from the materialistic evolutionists. T h e
following diagram and explanatory matter will suffice,
perhaps, to place tlie Teilhardian view before readers of
the present text.
3 59
 GENESIS

OMEGA: Creation and Creator Become One

Through Christ
Plerome
Socialization
Homo sQpiens
NOOGENESIS
(from nous, “reason,” “mind”)

Hominisation
Threshold of Reflection
Primates
ANTHROPOGENESIS
(from anthopos, “man’.’)

Mammals, etc.
Animals (Consciousness)
Plants Cellular Processes
Monocellulars Bacteria
BIOGENESIS
(from bios, “life”)

Threshold of Life
Minerals
Molecules Crystals
Atoms
Granules of Energy
COSMOGENESIS
(from cosmos, “order”-of the non-living world)

A L P H A
(Read upward, according to what Teilhard
calls the Axis of Ascending Complexity and
Consciousness)

3 60
 EVOLUTIONISM AND T I l E FALL
EXPLANATORY: Evolution, according to Teilhard, moves along a
kind of vertical line which lie calls “the axis o l ascending complexity
and consciousness,” each cosmic particle (monad) being composed o f a
“within” (of psychic or radial energy, also called psychism, which is not
amenable t o physical sense), and a “without” (physical or “tangential”
which is measurable) : both form an indivisible “spirit-matter” entity.
(Hence :his must not be thought of as a dualism,) 1. Peiiod of “Cosmo-
genaszs. The more complex the matter becomes, the more consciousness
(psyche) i t gains. Evolution is simply the continuous intensification of
the psychical o r radial energy. Cosmogenesis is the process of beconzing,
on an evolutionary line between a past and a future. The point of
departure from the axis is designated ALPHA, or the Alpha Point.
Through “granulation” of energy the f i r s t elementary particles took
form, and over a n unimaginable stretch of time assumed the status of
what present-day science calls atomic nuclei, atoms, o r molecules (these
are simply tools of explanation in physics). The birth of our planet
probaFly occurred about five million years ago. 2. P e ~ i o d of “Bio-
geiaesas.” When the “corpuscular number” in a particle reached a certain
level matter “came alive.” This “vitalisation” occurred when matter
crossed the threshold of life and marked the beginning of the age of
biogeneris. As physical mattcr became more and more complex, the
psychisin of the individual monad increased proportionately. 3. P e r i o d
of “Anthropogeizesis.“ A t the point when the brain reaches the necessary
degree of complexity, the threshold of reflection was crossed add man
was born. This power of thought made man a being distinct from all
other species. This was “not a matter of change of degree, but of a
change of nature, resulting from a change of state” (PM, 16G). The
horninisation of t h e species introduced the age of anthropogenesis. This
occurred probably at some point within the last million years. Concerning
i n s t i n c t in animals, Teilhard writes: “We realise better in our minds
the fact and the reason f o r the diwwsity of animal behavior. From the
moment we regard evolution as primarily psychical transformation, we
see there is not oiie instinct in nature, but a multitude of forms of
instincts each corresponding t o a particular solution of the problem
of life. The ‘psychical’ make-up of an insect is not and cannot be t h a t
of a vertebrate; nor can the instinct of a squirrel be t h a t of a cat or an
elephant: this is in virtue of the position of each on the tree of life”
(PM, 1F7). “The individual and instantaneous leap from instinct to
thought” marked the beginning of “horninisation,” which then advanced
by means of “the progressive phyletic spiritualisation in human civilisa-
tion of all the forces contained in the animal world” (PM, 180). AS
Julian Huxley puts it, in his Introduction: “The intensification of mind,
the raising of mental potential” is regarded “as being the necessary
consequence of complexification” (PM, 11-16), 4. The Period of NO-
agenesis," ( F r o m the Greek noesis, from n o e i n , “to perceive,” from n o u s ,
L‘inind”: hence, noesis in English, which, in philosophy, means purely
intellectual apprehension.) This phase began as a result of the gradual
evolution of mental pogers, with the appearance of the first homo
sapiens. (There a r e different races, Teilhard emphasizes, but only o n e
homo sapiens.) Evolution has now reached the stage at which major
physical development has lost significance. Science holds t h a t man is
unique in nature because of his brain processes, not because his brain
is the biggest in capacity b u t because it is more complex. According t o
Teilhard, “the noosphere (and more generally the world) represents a
whole that is not only closed but also centred. Because i t contains and
engenders consciousness, space-time is necessarily of a conwerge?tt n a t u r e .
Accordingly, its enormous layers, followed in the right direction, must
361
 GENESIS
somewhere ahead become involuted to a point which we might call
Omega, which fuses and consumes them integrally in itself” (PM, 269).
A t the present time we a r e in the period of socialisation in which, accord-
ing t o Teilhard, mankind becomes more and more united and integrated.
This will come about as a consensus of mankind will gradually replace
the growing capacity of the individual intellect because the human brain
will cease to grow. This common consciousness will lift humanity to a
higher level. Man inevitably continues t o socialize: i t is his nature to
do so; hence all things will converge at one center, Omega, the point
where humanity and t h e universe is bound to converge in the cosmic
Christ.
What roles w e played by God and Christ in the Teilhardian system?
H e puts the totality of being in the hands of the omnipresent God. He
places man in the Divine Milieu, yet in such a way that man is not
depersonalized in spite of ever increasing socialization. On the contrary,
i t is this personal link which connects each of us t o God, who is the
center, and the motor, so to speak, of the evolutionary process. We
become God’s partner in leading the world forward to the Omega point.
F o r some persons, man is the center, the only point of adoration in the
totality of being; for others, man is little o r nothing in this grandiose
universe-he is lost in it. Neither position is right. Referring t o Paul’s
sermon on thc Areopagus, Teilhard writes (DM, 2 6 ) : “God who has
made man in order that he may find him-God whom we t r y t o grasp
through the experiment of our lives-this God is as tangible and present
as t h e atmosphere in which we a r e submerged. He surrounds us from
all sides like the world itself.” Man cannot escape the Divine Milieu.
Each right action brings him into closer communion with Christ. “What-
soever ye do,” writes the Apostle, “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus”
(Col. 3:17). This means we should always act in close fellowship with
our Lord. The totality of man’s life, even in its most “natural” aspects,
is sanctifiable. From this point of beginning, the Christian life receives
its content and direction, how and where t o go. How does man enter
upon this path? By purifying his intentions and acting according t o the
Will of God. As man adheres to the creative power of God, he becomes
its instrument, or even more, its living extension. Man is thus united
with God and in God on this earth in a common love to create. And in
spite of the individual’s failures and sins the world as a whole will
achieve victory over evil, because God is on man’s side. Mankind is
assured t h a t the univwue, all creation, will rejoin the One when all
evolution shall have converged in the point Omega. This will be the
mysterious Plerome, where Creator and Creation will be one totality,
without, however, adding anything essential to God. The active center
of the Plerome in which everything is united, t h e creative Soul in whom
everything is consummated, is Jesus Christ. “Religion and science a r e
the two conjugated faces or phases of one and the same act of complete
knowledge-the only one which -an embrace t h e past and the future of
evolution so as t o contemplate, measure, and fulfill them (DM, 284,
285). Note well the following concluding statements (PM, 293, 294) :
“Is t h e Kingdom of God a big family? Yes, in a sense i t is. But in
another sense i t is a prodigious biological operation-that of the Redeem-
ing Incarnation. As early as in St. Paul and St. John, we read t h a t to
create, to fulfill and to purify the world is, f o r God, to unify i t by uniting
i t organically with himself. How does H e unify it? By partially immers-
ing himself in things, by becoming ‘element,’ and then, from this point
of vantage in the heart of the matter, assuming the control and leader-
ship of what we now call evolution. Christ, principle of universal
vitality because sprung up a s man among men, put himself in t h e
3 62
 EVOLUTIONISM AND THE FALL
position (maintained ever since) to subdue under himself, t o purify,
to direct, and superaniinati the general ascent of consciousness into
which he inserted hiinself. By a perennial act of communion and sub-
limation, he aggregates to hiinself the total psychisin of the earth.
And when he has gathered everything together and transforined every-
thing, he will close in upon himself and his conquests, thereby rejoining,
in a final gesture, the divine focus he has never left. Then, as St. Paul
.
tells us, God shall be all in all. , , The universe fulfilling itself in a
svnthesis of centres in serfect conPor~nitvwith the laws of union. God.
t i e Centre of centres. fn that final vision the Christian dogma culrnil
nates.” (Cf. Eph. 1:5-12, I Cor. 15:ZO-28, Col. 1:9-23, Rev. 1:8,1:17-18).
It will thus be seen t h a t Teilhard’s God is essentiallv theistic rather
than pantheistic: He is presented as t h e Eternal B d n g , in Himself
separate from the creation, and as immersing Himself into all created
being as the “center” and “inotor” of t h e evolutionary process. His
portrayal of the Omega Point a s the ultimate fusion of Creation and
Redemption in the Beatific Vision (Union with God) is hardly a varia-
tion froin the Apostle Peter’s description of the “new heavens and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3 :13; cf. Matt. 5 :8,
1 Cor. 13:12, 1 John 3:2, Rev. 21:l-8, 22:l-5). It strikes this writer t h a t
the most obvious weakness in the TeiIhardian exposition is his failure
to recognize the juridical aspect of the totality of being, and his conse-
quent failure t o deal adequately with the f a c t of evil and its consequences,
including the Scripture doctrines of judgment, rewards, and punishments.
(See Psa. 89:14, John 5:28-29, Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:l-16, 2 Thess.
1:7-10, Acts 17:130-31, Rev. 2O:ll-15, etc.) This, of course, is a tragic
lacuna in all the branches of human knowledge in our day.

363
 PART SEVENTEEN
T H E BEGINNING OF T R U E RELIGION
(Gen. 4 : l - l J )
1 , Preliminary Def inifions
It is doubtful that there is a more ambiguous word in
our language today than the word “religion.” It has liter-
ally come to mean “all things to all men.”
The pagan etymology of the word is given us by Cicero,
the Latin essayist. He derives it ( D e N a f u r d Deorum, 2 ,
28, 72) from the Latin third-conjugation verb, relego,
relegere, meaning “to go over again,” “to consider care-
fully,” that is, in thought, reading, and speech; and hence,
as used by him, to mean “reverent observance” of duties
to the gods. This etymology expresses fully the concept of
“religion” that lay back of the idolatry and ritualism of
pagan cults.
In our day the word is used to embrace everything from
per se devotion to an object, on one hand, to sheer super-
stition, on the other. (In no area has this been more
evident than in the innocuous wumgush expressed in the
series of broadcasts some years ago, and later published in
book form, under the title, This I Believe.) Considered
subjectively, of course, as devotion to an object, it can
take in almost any attitude or cult imaginable. From this
Ct
common denominator” point of view alone, to be reli-
gious is to be serious about something, to be serious enough
to regard that something as of supreme value in life, and
to take an attitude of commitment to the object that is so
valued. Obviously, from this viewpoint, religion may have
anything for its object, provided the anything is regarded
as worthy of devotion. (Cf. John Dewey’s definition of
“God” as “the unity of all ideals arousing us to desire and
actions”-this occurs in his little book, A C o m m o n Fuith,
p. 42.) Others have defined religion as “anything in which
one believes.” From this point of view devil-worship could
be called a religion. From this viewpoint, the object of
3 64
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
religion may be a Party or a Cause (and indeed the
Leninists do, in this sense, make a “religion” of atheism) ;
it may be an idol or an icon, or a whole pantheon of
anthropomorphic gods and goddesses; it may be a fetish or
an amulet, or some impersonal magic force (known vari-
ously as maiza, mawitu, orenda, wakan, etc.) ; it may be the
celestial bodies (sun, moon, star) or it may be “Mother
Earth” (Terra M a t e r ) , as in the ancient Cult of Fertility;
it may be an animal, a bird, or even an insect (cf. totem-
ism) ; it may be the male generative organs (phallic wor-
ship) ; it may be man himself (hence, Comte’s so-called
“religion of humanity”) ; it may even be the Devil, as in
some “spiritualisticyycults. Or, indeed it may be the God
of the Bible, the living and true God, the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:18-32, Exo. 3:13-15,
Deut. 6:4-5, Acts 17:24-31, 1 Thess. 1:9-10; Eph. 1:17,
1:3, etc.). The use of the word “religionyyin our day is so
equivocal-and the word itself has taken on such vapidity
-as to make it all but meaningless. W e are reminded here
of the Ohio College which referred to its “Religious
Emphasis Week” as “Be Kind to God Week,” and to the
words of William Temple: “A lot of people are going to
be surprised one day to find out that God is interested in
a lot of things besides religion.”
Faith, hope, and love are not criteria in themselves of
their worth; rather, the criteria are the objects of one’s
faith, the goal of one’s hope, and the recipient of one’s
love. So it is with religion: as just being serious about
something, it is of very questionable value; the value lies
in the object about which one is serious and to which one
gives personal devotion. In short, the nobility of a religion
(like that of faith, hope, or love) is to be determined, not
by its subjective aspect, but by its objective realities. To
define religion solely in subjective terms is only to denature
it, or a t least t o vitiate its significance.
365
 GENESIS
2. What T r u e Religion Is N o t . (1) It is not just
respectability. Mere respectability is a far cry from gen-
uine righteousness. ( 2 ) It is not just a status symbol,
although thousands of church members undoubtedly use
it as such. ( 3 ) It is not ritzialism. Pagan cults have
always been built around solemn festivals and processions,
and pagan temples have always reeked with the fumes of
incense. (4) It is not a matter of barter, saying to God,
ccYouscratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.” Some per-
sons can pray like a bishop in a thunderstorm who never
think of God a t any other time. ( 5 ) It is not an escapist
device. True religion is worshiping and serving God, not
especially from fear of punishment or hope of reward, but
out of sheer love for God. One of our oldtime preachers
used t o say that he was afraid of hell-scared Christians
because one had to keep them scared all the time. As a
matter of fact, irreligion is more liable than religion to be
a device for escape from reality.
“God and the doctor we alike adore
Just on the brink of danger, not before;
The danger passed, both are unrequited,
God is forgotten, and the doctor slighted.”
( 6 ) It is not just wisbfzil tbinkiizg, “the projection of the
f ather-image,” etc. The chief concerns of genuine religion
-self -abnegation, self -discipline, self -surrender, commit-
ment (Rom. 12:1-2)-are a t the opposite pole from any
kind of fantasy. (7) Religion is not just a convenience,
as the ultra-sophisticates would have it, something that
needs to be maintained t o stabilize moral and social order.
Again, although it does serve these ends, they are not its
primary concern. Its primary concern is the right rela-
tionship between the person and his God (John 3:l-6, 2
Cor. 5:17-20). ( 8 ) Religion is not primarily a social
institution. Nor is it designed to be used as a support of
social stability. Again, although it does serve to do this
3 66
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
as a secondary end, true religion is essentially personal: it
is personal commitment to the living and true (personal)
God (John 4:24) : it is communion of the human spirit
with the Divine Spirit (Rom. j : j , 8:2G-27, 14:17; Heb.
12: 14; 2 Pet. 3 :1 8 ) . Cf. Whitehead’s oft-quoted state-
ment: “Religion is what the individual does with his own
solitariness.” ( 9 ) It is not just morality in t h e popular
sense of that term by which it is equated largely with
were resfiecfability. However, in the true sense of the
word, in t h e sense t h a t morality t a l e s in one’s duties to
self, to society, arid to God, religion is morality. At t h e
same time, it goes beyond morality in the sense of includ-
ing one’s deepest personal attitudes toward, and devotion
to, and communion with, the Heavenly Father. (10) It
is not iiat7~re-worshiP. The esthetic experieiqce is not izeces-
sarily a religioirs exficvience. True religion looks beyond t h e
appreciation of nature itself to the worship of nature’s
God. Nature is the created; God is the Creator.
3 . W h a t T r u e Religiori Is. ( 1 ) I make no apology for
using the term “true religion.” Religion, to be religion in
t h e full sense of the word, accepts ( 1 ) the fact of the
existence and the awfulness of sin, ( 2 ) the fact that man
has allowed sin to separate him from God, ( 3 ) t h e fact
that because God is the offended One, He alone has the
right to state the terms on which H e grants forgiveness,
pardon, remission, justification, etc., and so receive the
of fender back into covenant relationship with Himself,
( 4 ) the fact that if man is ever to attain that righteous-
ness and sanctification “without which no man shall see
the Lord” (Heb. 12:14; Rom. 8:10, 14:17; Matt. 5 : 8 ) ,
he must have a revealed system of faith and practice
designed to heal the schism caused by sin and to effect his
reconciliation with the Father of spirits (Heb. 1 2 : 9 ) , ( 5 )
that, furthermore, this Remedial System must provide an
adequate Atonement (Covering) for sin-adequate in that
it is sufficient to vindicate the Absolute Justice challenged
3 67
 GENESIS
by man’s rebelliousness, and a t the same time sufficient to
overcome that rebelliousness by a demonstration of God’s
ineffable love for the one whom He created in His own
image (John 3:16; Gen. 1:27, 2:7). That there is such
a Remedial System, and that its details are revealed in the
Bible, is our thesis here, The essence of true religion is
vecoizciliation ( 2 Cor, 5 : 11-2 1, Eph. 2 : 1 1 - 2 2 ) , and this is
the grand objective of the Christian System as fully re-
vealed in the New Testament. It has been rightly said
that the test of a culture is the manner in which it treats
that which was created in God’s image. The French
mystic Amiel has written: “The best measure of the
profundity of any religious doctrine is given by its con-
ception of sin and of the cure of sin.” ( 6 ) The Bible has
little to say about the meaning of the word “religion”;
indeed in one instance it seems to equate “religion” and
<e
superstition.” Scripture makes it clear, however, what
trne religion is per se, and how it naairifests itself. Essen-
tially, as stated above, true religion is recorqciliation. This
is in complete harmony with man’s spiritual needs as
determined by his own experience, that is, if he is honest
with himself and honest with God. (Atheism is sheer
stupidity, the product of ignorance or of a perverted will:
no man can logically thirqlz his way into it.)
(7) Hence, the etymology of the word, in its Biblical
sense, is precisely what it is said to be by Lactantius
(Institzctes, 4, 2 8 ) and Augustine (Retractioi?~,I , 1 3 ,) ,
and others of the Church Fathers. They derive the word
from the first-conjugation Latin verb, religo, religure,
meaning “to bind back” or “to bind anew.” Harper’s
Latin Dictionary (LD, revised by Lewis and Short) has
this to say (s.v.) : “Modern etymologists mostly agree with
this latter view, assuming as root, lis, to bind, whence also
lictor, lex and legare; hence, religgio sometimes means the
same as obligatio.” The close relationship of the family of
words formed around the root lig (ligament, ligature,
3 68
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELlGION
oblige, etc,) to that formed around tlie root leg (lcx, legis,
“law,” lience legislate, legal, etc.) i s too obvioits t o bo
ignored. These two families of words both have the con-
notation of a bindiiig force. Whatever the word “religion”
may have ineant to tlie pagan world, the fact remains t h a t
the essence of Biblical religion is a biiidiiig of a ~ I C I ’ S O I I
aiiew to God (healing of t h e schism caused by sin: tlie
God of tlie Bible is the coveiiant God) and is fully ex-
pressed in t h e word “reconciliation” ( 2 Cor. 5 : 17-2 1 ) .
Just as tlie essential principle of music is harmony; of art,
beauty; of government, authority; of sin, selfishness; so
the fundamental principle of true religion is recoitciliatioii
(Epli. 2:11-22; 2 Cor. 5:18-20, 6:14-18).
( 8 ) In tlie Bible, and only in the Bible, do we find
revealed the Remedial System by which is effected tlie
healing of tlie wounds caused by sin. As a consequence
of this healing through regeneration and continuous sancti-
fication ( 2 Pet. 3:8, Heb. 12:14), t h e righteous person
ultimately attains holiiiess (from hO/oii, “whole”) , which
is wholeness or perfection ( t h a t is, completeness, from p e r
plus facere, “to make thorough, complete”). For the true
Christian, eternal life begins in tlie here and now, through
union with Christ (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 8 : l ) ; the attainment
of spiritual wholeness is consummated, of course, in t h e
ultimate redemption of t h e body (Matt. j : 4 8 ; Col. 1:12;
Rom. 8:18-24, 8 : l l ; 1 Cor. lj:35-58; 2 Cor. 5:l-lO; Phil.
3:20-21). (Cf. also Rom. 3:23 and 2 Cor. 5:20.)
4. The Foriiiiila of Tiwe Religiov
True religion. as defined above, is t h a t System of faith
and practice revealed in Scripture t h a t is designed to bind
man anew t o God in Covenant relationship. This system
-the actualizing of God’s Eternal Purpose, His Plan of
Redemption, for man-necessarily includes two depart-
ments or agencies (the divine and the human), and three
elements (irreducibles, essential institutions) . The two
departments are ( 1 ) t h e things t h a t God has done, and
369
 GENESIS
will do, for us; and ( 2 ) the things we must do for our-
selves in obedience to His revealed Will. That is to say,
God overtures and states the conditions on which He will
grant us forgiveness and remission of sins; and we, out of
loving obedience, accept and comply with the terms; and
so reconciliation is effected, and we are bound anew to our
Father in covenant relationship. Two basic principles
emerge a t this point, from Biblical teaching, namely, (1)
T h a t the root of true religion O N the divine side is the
grace of God (Eph. 2:1-10, esp. 2:8). ( a ) As Campbell
has written (CS, 36) : “The whole proposition must of
necessity in this case come from the offended party. Man
could propose nothing, do nothing, to propitiate his Crea-
tor, after he had rebelled against Him. Heaven, therefore,
overtures; and man accepts, surrenders and returns to God.
The Messiah is a gift, sacrifice is a gift, justification is a
gift, the Holy Spirit is a gift, eternal life is a gift, and even
the means of our personal sanctification is a gift from God.
Truly, we are saved by grace. Heaven, we say, does cer-
tain things for us, and also proposes to us what we should
do to inherit eternal life. . . , We are only asked to accept
a sacrifice which God has provided for our sins, and then
the pardon of them, and to open the doors of our hearts,
that the Spirit of God may come in and make His abode
with us. God has provided all these blessings for us, and
only requires us to accept of them freely, without any
price or idea of merit on our part. But He asks us t o
receive them cordially, and t o give up our hearts to Him.”
(b) All the principles, institutions, laws and blessings of
true religion issue from the grace of God. “Grace,”
writes Cruden, “is taken for the free and eternal love and
favor of God, which is the spring and source of all the
benefits which we receive from Him.” Grace is properly
defined as “unmerited favor to sinners.” (John 3 :16-17;
Tit. 3:j-7; Acts 1 5 : l l ; Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:3-6, 2:4-9,
3:9-11). The mother who sacrifices herself for her sick
370
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
child does it, not because she must, but because she loves
the child. In like manner, to say t h a t we are saved by
grace is to say that we are saved without any necessity o n
God’s part to save us. This means that God did not pro-
vide the Plan of Redemption for inan, with its accompany-
ing benefits and blessings, because H e was under any kind
of obligation to man, or to any other creature, to do so.
It means, rather, t h a t foreseeing man in a lost condition
and in danger of perishing for ever, God out of His inef-
fable love for him, arranged, provided and offered the
necessary Plan and means to reclaim and to regenerate
him, to build him up in holiness, and to prepare him for
citizenship in Heaven (Phil. 3:20-21, Rom. 8:28-30, Col.
1; 12-15). Both Creation and Redemption have their
source and root in God’s amazing love, mercy, and com-
passion. Every blessing of the Gospel Plan, every privilege
and blessing of Christian faith, worship and practice-all
are manifestations of God’s grace. In short, through God’s
grace, salvation has been brought within t h e reach of all
mankind; however, man must accept and appropriate this
salvation on the terms laid down under the New Covenant
(Tit. 2:11, John 3:16-17, Eph, 2 : 8 ) . No sift, how eve^
prccioiis, is of a n y value t o the recifiient, unless aiid until
the latter accrkts it aird afifirojriates it t o his own good.
(c) God’s grace includes, necessarily, the Atonement pro-
vided by t h e Son through tlie offering of His body and
the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25, 5 : l l ; 1 Pet. 2:24;
1 John 1:7, 2:2, 4:lO). (This Atonement made effectual
the salvation of the elect of all Dispensations: see the ninth
and tenth chapters of Hebrews.) The Son was under no
necessity of providing this Covering for man’s sin, but did
so willingly, because of His overwhelming love for man-
kind (Heb. 10:10-13, Joliii 15:13), and “for t h e joy t h a t
was set before him,” the joy of making possible the re-
demption of lost sinners (Heb. 12: 1-2). God’s grace also
includes the revelation by tlie Holy Spirit sent forth from
371
 GENESlS
Heaven ( 1 Pet. 1:12) of the conditions on which God
proposes to receive men anew into covenant relationship
with Himself. The Bible is the inspired and authoritative
record of this divine revelation (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim.
3:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:6-16; Eph. 3:4-5; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2
Pet. 1:21),
(2) That the root of true religiorz 01s t h e hzirnari side is
a n obedicrit faith. ( a ) Man’s part in true religion is that
of accepting and appropriating the benefits and blessings
of “the gifts and the calling of God” (Rom. 11:29).
This he does by faith in Christ (Heb. 11:6; John 1:lO-13,
14:1, 20:30-31; Matt. 16:16; Acts 16:31; Rom. 5:1, 10:9-
10; Gal. 3:26-27). This faith in Christ, however, is far
more than mere intellectual assent to the Christian formula
as embodied in the Good Confession (Matt. 10:32-33,
16:16; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Tim. 6:13): it is full commit-
ment, in spirit and soul and body, to the Mind and Will
of Christ (Jas. 2:18-26, Roni. 12:1-2, 1 Cor. 2:16; Phil.
2:5, 4:13; Gal. 2:20, Col. 3:17). The faith in Christ that
is faith unto the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:39) neces-
sarily includes both obedierice t o Christ (John 14:15, 15:
14; Heb. 5:8-9; 1 John 2:3, 5:2-3), and stedfast abiding
in Christ (Matt. 7:24-27, 28:20; John 8:31-32, 15:4-7;
2 John 9; Rev. 2:7, 14:13). It should be noted that
abiding, in Scrip; u r d terms, signifies activity on man’s
part, consecration, worship, service-in a word, continuing
stedfastly, “always abounding in the work of the Lord”
(1 Cor. 15 : 5 8, Matt. 2 5 : 3 1-46). The aburzdarst life is the
itboziridirig life (John 1 0 : l O ) . (b) Evevy act of the truly
Christinii (Spiritual) Life is a n a r t of f a i t h (Gal. 5:22-
2 5 ) , Repentance is faith turning the individual from
darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God (Acts
26:18, 2 Cor. 7:10, Rom. 2:4). The Good Confession is
faith declaring itself in the presence of witnesses (Matt.
10:32-33, Rom. 10:9-10; I John 2:23, 4:2). Baptism is
faith yielding to the authority of Christ (Matt. 28 : 18,
372 ’
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:27; cf. Matt. 3:15). The Lord’s Supper
is f a i t h remembering t h e Atonement provided for man by
the Christ of the Cross ( 1 Cor. 15:3, 11:23-26; Matt. 26:
26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-21; Heb. 10:25).
Prayer is faith communing with t h e Father through Christ
the Son and Mediator (Heb. 11:6, John 14:13, 1 Tim.
.
2 : J ) Liberality is f a i t h acknowledging God’s ownership
and man’s stewardship (Gen. 1:28; Psa. 24:1, 50:12; 1
Cor. 10:26; Acts 17:24-28; Mal, 3:8-10; Luke 16:2-4; 1
Cor. 16: 1-2). Meditation is faith pondering, and praise
is faith exalting our God and His Anointed. The true
Christian walks in faith, lives by faith, and dies in the
f a i t h (Rev. 14:13). Faith so motivates the truly religious
life, t h a t it is said in Scripture that “whatsoever is not of
faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). ( c ) True religion, in its
practical aspects, that is, as lived day by day by God’s
saints, is growth in boliiicss (Rom. 14:17, Heb. 12:14, 2
Cor. 3:18, 2 Pet. 1:4), and love, mercy, compassion, and
service toward all our fellows (Matt. 25:31-46, Luke 1 0 :
25-37, Jas. 1:27), especially toward “them that are of the
household of the faith” (Gal. 6:10). True religion em-
braces all human activities that proceed from the actual
Iiuiiig of the two Great Commandments (Deut. 6:5, Lev.
19:18, Matt. 22:34-40). The conclusive evidence of the
practice of true religion in personal life is the manifestation
of t h e fruit of the Spirit (Matt. 6:33, 7:15-23; Gal. 5:22-
2 5 ) . (d) The great tragedy of our time is t h e tendency
to downgrade sin, even to scorn the fact of sin, Freudians
would try to eliminate sin by “curing guilt.” However, t h e
facts are so obvious that only t h e spiritually blind refuse to
see (Matt. 15 : 14, Luke 6:39) ; wilful ignorance of spiritual
matters becomes more widespread as population growth
gathers momentum. The fact is t h a t the devil is not just
,
a “sick angel,” t h a t sin is tragically more than a mental
illness t o be treated by psycliotlierapy and rehabilitation,
as the “experts” would have us believe. Sin is open rebel-
373
 GENESIS
liousness-and rebellion-against God and His moral law.
And there is but one remedy-the remedy provided by
the agencies of true religion. The sad fact is that when
the blind continue to lead the blind, and the blind continue
to be willing t o be led by the blind, both shall fall into
the pit (Matt, 15 : 14). (e) The formula of true religion
is the following: Amazing grace (on God's side) Plzu the
obedience of faith (on man's side) eqzials true religion,
eqzrals eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9, 2 Pet. 1 : l l ) . Note,
finally, Eph. 2:8--"by grace have ye been saved through
faith; and that"-that is, that salvation--"not of your-
selves, it is the gift of God." This is the formula, Scriptur-
ally stated, of true religion, which embraces salvation,
reconciliation, pardon, remission, justification, regeneration,
sanctification, and immortalization.
J . T h e Disperisatioiis of T r u e Religion. (1) It is often
taken for granted that we have revealed in Scripture a t
least two, and probably three, different religions, namely,
the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian. Strictly
speaking this is not true. In the light of Bible teaching
itself, we do not have three religious systems revealed
therein; we have, rather, the record of the three successive
Dispensations of the one Progressive revelation of true
religion (cf. Isa. 28:10, 1 3 ; Mark 4:28). Those who fail
to recognize this fact, and those who deliberately refuse
to recognize it, put themselves outside the possibility of
any comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures. Only
those who accept the Bible for what it is-one Book, the
Book of the Spirit, with OM^ theme, redemptioiz through
Christ J e s m (John 1 : 2 9 ) , can hope to acquire any ade-
quate knowledge of its content. (Cf. 2 Tim. 2 : l J , 1 : 1 3 ,
2:2.) Failure to distinguish what belonged to each of the
Covenants, and to each of the Dispensations, of Biblical
religion, has been, from the beginning, a prolific source of
error and confusion throughout Christendom, and even
more so throughout the non-Christian world. A vast per-
3 74
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
centage of professed church members in our day have no
concept whatever of these distinctions, and the so-called
It
clergy” is not f a r behind them in maintaining this tragic
lacuna in Scripture knowledge. (2) The word “dispensa-
tion” is a Bible word: it occurs four times in the New
Testament, in 1 Cor. 9:17, Eph, 1: 10, Eph. 3 :2, and Col.
1:21i. It designates the procedure by which God, in each
successive period of revelation, has chosen to “dispense”
both His requirements and His blessings on all who choose
to enter into covenant relationship with Him (Jer. 3 1 : 3 1-
34, 2 Cor. 3:1-11, Heb. 8:l-13, 1 John 1:l-4). The
Greek original, oiKonomia, means literally “household man-
agement,” commonly designated the “economy” of a given
system; hence it may be translated “administration,” “pro-
vision,” “dispensation,” or even “stewardship” (even God
is sometimes presented in Scripture as a steward). (3)
Note the following matters of fact: ( a ) The three Dis-
pensations of Biblical religion are the Patriarchal, which
extended from Adam to Moses a t Sinai; the Jewish, which
extended from Sinai to Pentecost (it was abrogated by
Christ’s death on the Cross, Col. 2:13-15, but God gra-
ciously permitted it to continue as a social institution
down to t h e destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70) ; and the
Christian, extending from Pentecost to t h e Second Coming
of Christ. (b) Each Dispensation may properly be desig-
nated a dispe17satioit of diuiiie gyace; however, this phrase
is descriptive, in its full sense, only of t h e present or
Christian Dispensation (which might also be designated
the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit, who came on the Day
of Pentecost to abide in, and t o vitalize, the Church, t h e
Body of Christ: Acts 2:38, Rom. 5:1i, Eph. 2:22). It will
be recalled t h a t Alexander Campbell spoke of the Patri-
archal Dispensation as the starlight age, the Jewish Dispen-
sation as the moonlight age, the special ministry of John
the Baptizer to the Jewish nation as the twilight age, and
the Christian Dispensation as the sunlight age, of Divine
375
4:l-5 GENESIS
revelation. (c) Dispensntioizs changed as the type of priest-
hood was c h m g e d . Throughout the Patriarchal Dispensa-
tion the patriarch or father of the family (which fre-
quently took in several generations of offspring) acted
as priest, that is, as mediator between God and the mem-
bers of his household (Heb. 7:4, Acts 7 : 8 ) . Throughout
the Jewish (or Mosaic) Dispensation, the Levitical (Aaron-
ic) priesthood served as mediators between God and the
nation, the children of Israel (Exo. 6:16-20; Exo., ch. 2 8 ;
Num. 17:8-11, Heb. 5:1-10, 7:11-28). Under the Chris-
tian Dispensation, the New Covenant, all Christians are
priests unto God, and Christ Himself is their High Priest
(1 Pet. 2 : j ; Heb. 7:16-17, 9:ll-12, 9:24-28; 1 Tim. 2:5;
Rev. 1:6, j:lO, 20:6, etc.). Thus it will be noted that
Dispensations changed as the type of priesthood changed-
from the family to the national to the universal (John
1 :29).
6. T h e Begiiinirrg of Tvrie Religiovi (Gen. 4 : l - j a ) .
“ 1 Aiid the man t h e w Eve his wife; and she con-
ceived, aMd bnve Cain, and said: I have gotteri a mail
with the help of Jehovah. 2 Aiid again she bare his
brother Abel. Am1 Abel was a keeper of sheep, bait
Cain was a tiller of the groiuid. 3 A n d iri process of
t i m e it came t o pass, that Cain brozight of the fruit
o f the groLiif3 aii offering iii2to Jehovah. 4 A n d Abel,
he also bvozight of the firstlirigs of his flock and of
the f a t thereof. Aizd Jehovah had respect unto Abel
and to his offering: B u t unto Cniii arid t o his offer-
iiig he had riot Yespect.’’
A. Campbell (LP, 13 1, 132) : “There was no religion
before the fall of man, either in Heaven or Paradise. That
would be a startling proposition in the pulpit, yet it is
irrefutably true. What is the meaning of the word religio,
from which our word religion is derived? Is it not to
bind again? Could there be a second binding, if there had
not been an antecedent bond? There was no religion in
3 76
 THE BEGINNING OF TRIJE RELIGION 4:l-$
Paradise, while it was the home of Adam, for there was
no bond broken. Accordingly, religion began after tlie fall
of inan. In like manner, there was no religion in heaven,
There was superlative admiration and adoration, but no
religion. This brief discussion of the word ‘religion’ will
save you many blunders and much unprofitable thought;
provided you understand how it radiates and rainif ies
throughout all t h e statutes of morality and piety. Now,
while there was no ~ r l i g i o i i in Paradise, and no necessity
for it, until there was a bond broken and rights forfeited,
thew was piety. What is tlie meaning of the word fiicf?)!
It is no more nor less than gratitude. An ungrateful being
is a monster; lience Paul teaches us t o hate ingratitude.
Ingratitude is religious sin, and sin is no more nor less than
ingratitude. Paul once said, let children learn to show
piety, by gratitude to their parents. In consequence of
sin, man is now in a preternatural state, not supernatural.
Tlie grace of God enables him to rise to tlie supernatural
state. To this end Christianity is a scheme of reconcilia-
tion, and where tliere is no alienation, there can be no
reconciliation.” Campbell again (CS, 36 and 36, n ) :
“Religion, as t h e term imports, began after tlie Fall; for it
indicates a previous apostasy. A remedial system is for a
diseased subject. Tlie primitive man could love, wonder
and adorc, as angels now do, without religion; but man,
fallen and apostate, needs religion in order to his restoration
to the love and worship and enjoyment of God. Religion,
then, is a system of means of reconciliation-an institution
for bringing inan back to God-something to bind m a n
anew to love and delight in God.” “Rcligia with all its
Latin family, imports a binding again, or tying f a s t t h a t
which was dissolved.” Religion was made for man, for
fallen man, and not inan for religion. According to t h e
Genesis record, true religion had its beginning in tlie ac-
count of the sacrifices offered to Yahweh by Cain and
Abel (Gen. 4:1-15).
3 77
4:l-5 GENESIS
7. T h e Elements o f T r u e Religioii. By “elements” we
mean the irreducibles, the essentials (those factors without
which true religion could not be true religion). These
elements are, and have been from the beginning, the Altar,
the Sacrifice, and the Priesthood. (1) The Altar in Patri-
archal times was an artificial erection of earth, turf, and
unhewn stones, on which the patriarch offered sacrifices
for his household. It was to serve as a place of meeting
for man with God, who was to be approached with a gift
in the form of a sacrifice (Gen. 8:20, 12:7-8, 13-18, 22:9,
26:25, 33:20; Exo. 17:15, 20:24-26; Josh. 8:30, 22:lO;
Judg. 6:25-27, 21:4; 1 Sam. 7:17, 14:35; 2 Sam. 24:21,
24:25; 1 Ki. 18:30-32;2 Chron. 4:1,etc.). In the Jewish
Dispensation, the Altar was incorporated into the Taber-
nacle, and later into the Temple, and was known as the
Altar of Burnt-Offering (Exo. 27:l-8, 2 Chron. 4 : l ) .
In the Christian Dispensation, Christ Himself is both Altar
and Sacrifice. Some hold that a t Calvary our Lord offered
up His divine nature or the Altar of His perfect human
nature (John 1:14; Matt. 1:18-24; cf. Heb. 4:15, 7:26;
Exo. 20:25-26). (2) Sacrifice under the Patriarchal and
Jewish Dispensations was usually that of a lamb, a male,
the “firstling” of the flock, without blemish and without
spot (Gen. 4:4, Exo. 12 :5 ) . These animal sacrifices were,
of course, substitutionary and typical: they were designed
to point to (prefigure) the Supreme Sacrifice, that of the
Lamb of God, our Passover, the Perfect Atonement for
“the sin of the world” (John 1:29, Isa. 53:7, 1 Pet. 1:19,
1 Cor. 5:7, Rev. 13:8). (3) The type of Priesthood
changed, as noted above, with the change of Dispensations
-from the Patriarchal Priesthood to the Aaronic or na-
tional Priesthood, both of which were abrogated with the
ratification of the New Covenant, and were superseded
by the universal Priesthood of all obedient believers in
Christ, with Christ Himself acting as their great High
378
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-5
Priest (1 Pet, 2:5; Rom. 12; Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6; Heb,
7:26-28, 9:11-12, 9:24-28),
7. The Storj, of Caiii aiid A M . ( 1 ) Geography. There
is no indication in the Genesis record as to where the events
occurred t h a t are related here. It is to be taken for
granted, however, that they took place somewhere outside,
and perhaps in the vicinity of, t h e Garden of Eden, the
gates of which had been closed forever to fallen man. ( 2 )
Chronology. It is impossible to formulate any accurate
chronology of the events related in the early chapters of
Genesis. Ussher’s figures (now almost uniformly re-
jected), following in general the Hebrew text literally,
cover a period from 4004 B.C. for the Creation, to 2348
B.C. for the Flood. Other authorities, following the
chronology of the Septuagiiit and of the writings of Jose-
phus, range from 5426 B.C. for the Creation, to 3171 B.C.
for t h e Deluge. In terms of pottery chronology, the early
archaeological periods of Palestinian culture are usually
given as follows: the Neolithic Age, c. 6000-4500 B.C.
(marking the development of plant and animal domestica-
tion, with pottery first appearing toward the close) ; the
Chalcolithic A g e , c. 4500-3000 B.C. (the period of irriga-
tion culture, and of the widespread use of pottery, in
Palestine) ; the Broiize Age, c. 3000-1200 B.C. (the period
generally of Egyptian control in Palestine, terminating in
the bondage of Israel in Egypt, the Exodus, and the Con-
quest of Canaan under Joshua) ; the Zroii Age, c . 1200-333
B.C. (from the time of the Judges to t h a t of Alexander
of Macedon and the Hellenistic Period). Because of cer-
tain incalculable factors it is impossible to formulate any
accurate chronology of t h e events related in Genesis prior
to the Call of Abraham. The following tersely cogent
statement will suffice here for the present: “The creation
is sufficiently dated by t h a t immortal phrase, ‘in the begin-
ning . . .,’ so distant is it” (NBD, 213). (For elaboration
3 79
4:l-5 GENESIS
of the chronological problems of the events recorded in
Genesis, see infra, Part XVIII.)
(3) V.1. “Arzd the ~ i z a n k n e w Eve his wife, and she
conceived,” etc. Note Whitelaw’s comment (PCG, 77) :
“The Divine blessing (ch. 1: 2 8 ) , which in its operation
had been suspended during the period of innocence, while
yet it was undetermined whether the race should develop
as a holy or fallen seed, now begins to take effect (cf. ch.
18:14, Ruth 4:13, Heb. 11:11).” (But-Does not Scrip-
ture teach that God’s Eternal Purpose included His Scheme
of Redemption, in view of His foreknowledge of man’s
lapse into sin? Does not the Cosmic Plan envision Re-
demption as the consummating phase of creation?) (Cf.
1 Pet. 1:18-20, Matt. 25:34, Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8, 17:8.)
“And bare Caiii, arid said, I have gotteFi a mail with the
help of Jehovah,’) etc. “The meaning of the name is
‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented
as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire,’ ‘get’” (IBG,
5 17) ; hence, a “possession.” Cain seems to have been a
progenitor of the Kenites (Gen. 15:19, Num. 24:21-22).
Note Eve’s statement, “I have gotten a man aloizg.tuith
Yahweh,” that is, iiz cooperation with Yahweh. Was this
just the spontaneous outcry of joyful motherhood? O r
was it essentially an utterance of faith, harking back to
the oracle of Gen. 3 :15 ; that is, Did Eve suppose that this
fruit of her womb was the oracularly promised seed? Does
her designation of this newborn babe as a 112ar1 indicate
that she had previously borne daughters only? Some com-
mentators, including Murphy, think this possible. Cer-
tainly her statement was a manifestation of her faith in
Yahweh, and in all likelihood she did recognize in Cain’s
birth “the earnest and guarantee of the promised seed.’’
However, the impression conveyed by the narrative indi-
cates that this was her first-born, and indeed the first-born
of the human family. Whether either the Man or the
Woman was aware of the Messianic implication in the
380
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-1
oracle of Gen. 3 : 15 we have no ineaiis of knowing. Scrip-
ture teaching seems to indicate, however, that this implica-
tion became a matter of progressive revelation, reaching
its highest point in the testimonies of the Hebrew prophets
and especially in the work of John t h e Baptizer, t h e last
of this great prophetic line,
(4) V.2. Does this mean t h a t the brothers were twins?
Some have thought so, basing their view on the repeated
phrases, “thy brother” and “my brother” throughout t h e
narrative. It seems obvious, however, t h a t this is conjec-
ture: no such idea is necessarily conveyed in the text.
Note t h a t the name Abel means “breath,” “vanity,” etc.
was this an unconscious “melancholy prophecy of his
premature removal by the hand of fratricidal rage”?
Certainly it was a proper designation of the short span of
life and its tragic end t h a t was experienced by this brother.
(Cf. Jas. 4:14; Job 7:7, 14:l-2; Psa. 39:5, 102:3, 144:4;
Eccl. 1:2; Isa. 40:6-8; 1 Pet. 1:24-25.) Note t h a t whereas
Abel became a “lieeper of sheep” ( a sheepherder, sheep
including goats, of course), Cain chose to be a “tiller of
t h e ground” (a farmer), Both occupations had already
been Divinely authorized by the terms of t h e penalty
imposed on mankind (3:17-19) and the coats of skins
provided for Adam and Eve (3:21). Is this “an attempt
to explain why the brothers offered different kinds of
sacrifice”? Did Cain’s choice of occupation-the agricul-
tural rather than the pastoral-serve to point up a n innate
rebelliousness, as if to assert hiinself and to his fellows his
sheer independence, and his sovereignty over nature as well,
by his toilsome wresting of a livelihood from the ground
which was under a Divine anathema? O n the other hand,
in choosing the agricultural life was not Cain simply carry-
ing out the terms of the penalty previously decreed on
fallen m a n ? We see no really justifiable grounds for
necessarily relating differences of moral character in Cain
and Abel to their respective choices of occupations.
381
4:l-T GENESIS
8. The Begiizizing of Sacrifice (vv. 1-ja) . ( 1 ) As noted
heretofore, the beginning of sacrifice marked the beginning
of true religion, Although the essential element of sacri-
fice-the shedding of blood-is intimated in God’s provi-
sion of coats of skins for Adam and Eve, the first account
of sacrifice as a Divine institution occurs here in connec-
tion with the story of Cain and Abel. Cain, we are told,
brought an offering “of the fruit of the ground” unto
Yahweh, but Abel brought of “the firstlings of his flock
and the f a t pieces thereof” (“the best of the best”).
What was the consequence? God, we are told, accepted
Abel and his offering (by what kind of sigrz we have no
means of knowing, cf. Lev. 9:24, 1 Chron. 21:26, 2 Chron.
7:1, 1 Ki. 1 8 : 3 8 ) , but H e rejected Cain and his offering.
We encounter here one of the most profound and most
significant problems of Divine revelation, namely, Why
did God accept Abel’s offering arid reject Cain’s? The
answer to this problem might well be said to be the key
to the understanding of God’s Eternal Purpose and His
Plan of Redemption for mankind.
(2) Throughout this entire course it has been repeatedly
emphasized that one cannot expect to get a correct and
comprehensive understanding of Scripture unless he studies
each text or passage, not only in the light of its immediate
context, but also in the light of Bible teaching as a whole;
and, it might well be added, unless he is willing to be open-
hearted in accepting what he gets by this method. Perhaps
in no Scripture narrative do we find examples of the con-
fusion which results, and of the fantastic ideas which can
be put forward by persons biased in some respect, than we
find in the various “explanations” commonly offered as
solutions of the problems which arise from the story of
Cain and Abel, their respective offerings, and the Divine
responses to them. Why was Abel’s offering accepted,
and Caiids rejected, by Yahweh? Obviously, the distinc-
tion is to be traced ( a ) to the dispositions of the two
3 82
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-5
brothers, or ( b ) to tlie materials of t h e respective offer-
ings, or (c) perhaps to both of these factors. Cornfeld
(AtD, 22) suggests tlie following: “Probably soil cultiva-
tion and cattle raising developed side by side; b u t God’s
preference for Abel’s offering of tlie ‘firstlings’ of his
flock and of their ‘fat portions’ reflects a Semitic standard
of values which regards tlie austere nomadic life as t h e
good life.” (To be sure, Jewish commentators can hardly
afford to accept the simple New Testament explanation
of this problem as presented below.) Sliinner also suggests
the entirely sirbjective explanation (ICCG, 105, 106) :
“Why was the one sacrifice accepted and not tlie other?
.
. . Since the reason is not stated, it must be presumed to
be one which t h e first hearers would understand for them-
selves; and they could hardly understand t h a t Cain, apart
from his occupation and sacrifice, was less acceptable to
God than Abel. On the other hand they would readily
perceive t h a t the material of Cain’s offering was not in
accordance with primitive Semitic ideas of sacrifice. . . I

The whole manner of t h e narration suggests t h a t the inci-

dent is conceived as the initiation of sacrifice-the first
spontaneous expression of religious feeling in cultus. If
that impression be sound, it follows also t h a t t h e narrative
proceeds on a theory of sacrifice: the idea, viz., that animal
sacrifice alone is acceptable to Yahve. . . . Behind this
may lie (as Gunkel thinks) t h e idea t h a t pastoral life as a
whole is more pleasing to Yahve than husbandry.” (IBG,
j 1 8 ) : “It is possible t h a t a reason was given” in an original
document, “and t h a t its omission by J was a piece of
polemic against tlie peasant custom of bringing t h e f r u i t
of the groirnd as ai1 offcriiig to the Lord, instead of t h e
time-honored nomad offering of a n animal.” See also
HBD, 2 : “Whether the gift of Abel was more acceptable
I because it was blood, the essence of life, instead of grain,
1 or because it was offered with greater sincerity, is not
clear. In tlie story of Abel’s death we read of t h e struggle
383
4:l-J GENESIS
between pastoral and agricultural phases of society.” Note
that these comments presuppose only a bziilzan theory (or
tradition) of sacrifice: the possibility of a Divine ordinance
of sacrifice is not even taken into consideration. (JB, 19
n . ) : “The younger is preferred to the elder. This theme
runs throughout the whole Bible and, in Genesis, its first
appearance here is followed by others (Isaac preferred to
Ishmael, Jacob to Esau, Rachel to Leah). Such preference
demonstrates the freedom of God’s choice, his contempt
for earthly standards of greatness, and his regard for the
lowly.” (But in each of these cases mentioned, the Divine
choice was not an arbitrary one, but in response to certain
spiritual excellences (aspects of faith), or lack of them,
on the part of the persons involved). Tos (ABOT, 6 3 ) :
“The Yahwist editor did not want to present absolute
genealogies or objective descendency. His purpose was to
bring home the lesson: Once man rebels against God he
becomes an enemy even to his fellow man. Therefore, he
used a traditional story in which God favored a good shep-
herd over his wicked brother who was a farmer. This was
a story that would be treasured and appreciated by the
Hebrews who had been a pastoral people before they
settled in Palestine.” Elliott (MG, 54) presents a some-
what different view: “Entering into the acceptance and
nonacceptance was the matter of attitude. Certainly there
was some degree of sincerity on the part of both men.
The key, however, is that Abel brought the very first and
best. The word used for his offering was firstling or
‘best of the flock.’ It comes from a root which indicates
something carefully chosen. Abel recognized himself as
God’s slave with God as the master to whom the first and
the best should be given. Cain simply gave a token to
show that he was grateful for services received; he felt it
was the thing to do, much in the spirit of tipping the
porter for carrying the bags. . . . Cain may have given a
little grudgingly, as though he was forced to do so by his
3 84
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-fi
superior, very much the way some folk give the tithe. The
lesson underscored is that a gift, regardless of what, or
how large or small, is a blessing to the giver only if his
heart is right as he gives. Here, the essence of religion
is implied-giving God the v r i y best.” (Cf. 1 Sam. 12,
15:22; Isa, 1:11-13; Jer. 7:3-10, 7:21-26; Hos. 2:8-13;
Amos 5:14-15; Mic. 6:8; Lev. 19:17.) This author goes
on to say: “The correct answer to t h e acceptance of t h e
offering is to be seen in what has been suggested above
and not in any theory of the blood versus the nonblood
offering, for t h e laws on sacrifice had not been given yet.”
This last statement is a little short of amazing, to say the
least. Does this writer, or anyone else, have any legitimate
ground for asserting so dogmatically that the law of sacri-
fice had not as yet been given, or t h a t the matter of blood
versus nonblood offering had nothing to do with the
human attitudes and the Divine responses in this tragic
case? Especially does anyone have sufficient evidence to
support such statements in view of the fact that they flatly
contradict the plain teaching of t h e New Testament?
( 3 ) It will be noted that in all the excerpts quoted
above the niatter. of faith a i i d its source, or the lack of it,
on the part of the worshipers is completely ignored. One
wonders just why t l i s is so. Why did Yahweh accept
Abel’s offering of the firstlings of his flock, but reject
Cain’s offering of t h e fruit of the ground? Why a n y
offering a t all, if the laws of sacrifice had not been given?
The only answer t h a t can be cited which really answers
the problems involved in the interpretation of this narra-
tive is the siiiiplest t h a t can be given, the answer which is
presented with such crystal clarity in the New Testament,
viz., t h a t Abel made his offering ~ J faith
J and thus obeyed
God’s Word, whereas Cain presumed to assert his will above
the will of God and brought a n offering of his own choice.
Human presumption, assertion of human authority in ne-
385
4:l-.Y GENESIS
glect of, or in disobedience to, the sovereignty of God, is
indeed “the way of Cain” (Jude 11, 1 John 3: 12).
(4) Heb. 11:4--“By faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had
witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing
witness in respect of his gifts: and through it, he being
dead yet speaketh.” But how is faith acquired? In only
one way, insofar as the Scriptures inform us: Fnith comes
f r o m henritig the W o r d o f God (Rom. 10:17, Gal. 3:2, 5 ;
1 Cor. 1:21). (This is a fact, proved to be such in human
experience : the whole evangelistic (missionary) program of
the church is based on the fact that where there is no
preaching, no hearing, there is no faith, no conversion, no
church.) If Abel was motivated by faith in presenting
his offering to Yahweh, it necessarily follows that the
offering was in harmony with the Divine Word, and hence
that the law of sacrifice had been divinely ordained. This
means, of course, that the essentials of the institution of
sacrifice, the observance of which marked the beginning
of true religion, had already been made clear to Adam and
Eve and their offspring. This means, too, that it had
already been decreed by God that the very essence of sacri-
fice (and animal sacrifice was the primary and essential
form of sacrifice under the Old Covenant) was the shed-
ding of precious blood because “the life is in the blood”
(Lev. 17:11, Heb. 9:22). Therefore, it follows that God
accepted Abel’s offering because Abel obeyed the Divine
law of sacrifice in presenting a blood offering; Cain, on
the other hand, disobeyed this most fundamental aspect
of true religion. Indeed the shedding of blood is intimated
in Gen. 3 :2 1 : we are told here that God, as soon as Adam
and Eve sinned, made “coats of skins, and clothed them”:
this necessitated the slaying of animals and hence the shed-
ding of their blood. This reasoning is further authenti-
cated by the language of Jesus in which He referred to
“Abel the righteous” (Matt. 23:35; cf. Luke 11:51, Heb.
386
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:1-5
12 :24) , What is righfeoiisness, and who is a rig!!fooiis
person? The righteousness which is of f a i t h consists in
obeying the Divine Word (Rorn. 10:6-10; Gen. 6: 19, Heb.
1 1 :7, 8, etc,) ; hence the righteous person is one whose
disposition is a t all times to do the Father’s Will to t h e full
(Matt. 3 : 13 ) , This was the disposition which Abel mani-
fested in bringing his offering to Yahweh. This was the
disposition which Cain did itof inaiiifest : on tlie contrary,
he manifested the disposition to put his own will (his own
way of doing things) above God’s Will (God’s way of
doing things). What could a just God do but
reject his offering? Thus it will be seen that God’s accept-
ance of Abel’s offering and His rejection of Cain’s offering
was not an arbitrary act on His part: indeed we are told
repeatedly in Scripture t h a t our God is no respecter of
persons as such (Deut. 10:17, 2 Chron. 19:7, Acts 10:34,
Rom. 2:11, Gal, 2:6, Eph. 6:9, 1 Pet. 1:17). I n a word,
both the inner attitudes of the two brothers, and their
respective offerings as well, were the factors which elicited
God’s responses in this case: their offerings were simply
proofs of the interior state of their hearts, respectively.
These facts are all corroborated by the teaching of the
Bible, from the first to the last, t h a t every lamb that was
ever offered on the Patriarchal and Jewish altars was
divinely intended to typify (point forward to) the Lamb
of God-Christ our Passover-whose Vicarious Sacrifice
actualized the election (salvation) of all obedient believers
of all generations of manltind, those of the Old Covenant
as well as those of the New (John 1 :29, 1 : 3 5 ; 1 Cor. 5 :7;
Isa. 53:7; Acts 8:32-33; 1 Pet, 1:19; Rev. 5:6, 8, 12; Rev.
6 : l f f . ; Heb,, chs. 7, 8, 9 ; Heb. 1O:l-4,8-14, etc.). More-
over, it should be noted here that Cain’s rebelliousness is
clearly indicated by the fact t h a t lie presented an offering
from the ground, the very ground which had already been
placed under a Divine anathema (Gen. 3:17, Rom. 8:20-
22). To disregard these truths of Scripture is to disregard
3 87
4:l-5 GENESIS
the Word of God itself, and to flout,the testimony of the
Holy Spirit. (See especially Heb. 10:29.) It is to spread
confusion in an area in which the truth is so simple and
clear that wayfaring men, yea fools, need not err therein
(Isa. 3 j : 8 ) . Finally, it follows that the other integral
parts (elements) of true religion were present here, viz.,
the Altar and the Priesthood. Although no mention of
the altar occurs in the text, it is necessary to infer its use:
altar and offerings are inseparably linked in the institution
of sacrifice. Moreover, this event occurred a t the very
fountainhead of the Patriarchal Dispensation with its
patriarchal (or family) priesthood; hence Abel must have
served in that capacity. The time element connecting
man’s sojourn in Eden with his history in the world out-
side is so indefinite (as a matter of fact it is completely
ignored) in the Genesis record that we cannot rule out
the possibility t h a t many, many persons-even as descend-
ants of Adam and Eve-were on earth by this time (cf.
Gen. 5 : 3 - 5 ) .
(Note here Scripture passages in which God is repre-
sented as manifesting “respect” for an object or the person
associated with it (Gen. 4:4, 5 ; Exo. 2:25, Lev. 26:9, 2 Ki.
13:23, Psa. 1 3 8 : 6 ) . Note other texts in which God is
represented as tiof being a respecter of persons (Deut. 10:
17, 2 Chron. 19:7, Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11, Gal. 2:6, Eph.
6:9, 1 Pet. 1: 1 7 ) . Are these contradictory passages? Not
a t all. The two series simply have reference to very dif-
ferent kinds of “respect.” The former signifies a righteous
and benevolent “respect” based on “proper discrimination
as to character”; the latter signifies God as acting without
pavfiality (cf. Haley, ADB, p a 8 1) .)
T o summarize: Why did God nccefit Abel’s offering a d
vejecf Cain’S The answer is, unequivocally : Because Abel
acted by faith, and Cain did riot; becnaise Ahel did what
God had told hiin to do, and Cairi did not. Lange
(CDHCG, 2 5 6 ) : “It is a fact that a difference in the
388
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-5
state of heart of the two brothers is indicated in the
appearance of their offerings. , , , This difference appears
to be indicated, in fact, as a difference in relation to the
earliness, the joyfulness, and freshness of the offerings,
After the course of some time, it means, Cain offered
something from t h e fruits of the ground. But immediately
afterward it is said expressly, Abel had offered (prefct.itc);
and farther it is made prominent that he brought of the
firstlings, the fattest and best, These outward differences
in regard to the time of t h e offerings, and the offerings
themselves, have indeed no significance in theinselves con-
sidered, but only as expressing the difference between a
free and joyful f a i t h in the offering, and a legal, reluctant
state of heart. It has too the look as though Cain had
brought his offering in a self-willed way, and for himself
alone-that is, he brought it to his own altar, separated,
in an unbrotherly spirit, from t h a t of Abel.” Murphy
(MG, 148, 149) : “There was clearly an internal moral
distinction in t h e intention or disposition of the offerers.
Habel had faith-that confiding in God which is not bare
and cold, but is accompanied with confession of sin, and
a sense of gratitude for His mercy, and followed by obedi-
ence to His will. Cain had not this faith. He may have
had a faith in the existence, power, and bounty of God;
but it wanted t h a t penitent returning to God, t h a t humble
acceptance of His mercy, and submission to His will,
which constitute true faith. . , . But, in this case, there is
a difference in the things offered. The one is a vegetable
offering, t h e other an animal; the one a presentation of
things without life, the other a sacrifice of life. Hence
the latter is called pIeioii tlniisia; there is i i i o w in i f than in
thc former. The two offerings are therefore expressive
of the different liinds of faith in the offerers. They are
the excogitation and exhibition in outward symbol of the
faith of each.” M. Henry (CWB, 1 3 ) : “That which is
to be aimed a t in all acts of religion is God’s acceptance:
3 89
4:l-5 GENESIS
we speed well if we attain this, but in vain do we worship
if we miss it ( 2 Cor. 5 : 9 ) , , . , The great difference was
this, that Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. There
was a difference in the principle upon which they went.
Abel offered with an eye to God’s will as his rule, and
God’s glory as his end, but Cain did what he did only for
company’s sake, or to save his credit, not in faith, and so
it turned into sin to him. Abel was penitent; Cain was
unhumbled; his confidence was within himself.’’ (Let me
suggest here that for homiletic purposes Matthew Henry’s
Commentary 011 the Whole Bible, edited by Church, pub-
lished by Zondervan, is in a class by itself.)
9 . The Divitie Origin of Sacrifice. The first specific
reference to the Plan of Redemption is found in the oracle
that the Seed of the Woman should crush the Old Serpent’s
head (Gen. 3 :I 5 ) . The second is found in the institution
of sacrifice, of which we have the earliest account in the
story of Cain and Abel. The Divine origin of sacrifice
is proved by the following facts: (1) B y the very character
of the institiLtiori itself. Although having moral signifi-
cance in the sense t h a t it involved the moral virtue of
obedience to God, it is essentially a positive institution.
W. T. Moore (in Campbell, LP, 111, n.): “The Moral is
commanded, because it is right; the Positive is right, be-
c a l m it is coiiaiiumded.” Again (ibid., 110, n.): “The idea
of Sacrifice lies a t the foundation of all religion. And this
is very conclusive proof that religion itself is of Divine
origin, for no man could ever have origiriated the idea of
sacrifice. T h a t man would have come to the conclusion,
u priori, that the life of an i~?r?ocenfuictiiiz would propi-
tiate Deity is an absurdity which is equaled only by the
insanity of infidelity itself. The first thought to a mind,
unassisted by revelation, would be t h a t the anger of Deity
would be kindled a t the idea of such a Sacrifice; and con-
sequently, i t would never have been used as a means of
appeasing anger, unless done by the authority of some
390
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4: 1- j
Divine command. Hence, we conclude t h a t God origi-
nated it.’’ Whitelaw (PCG, 78) : “The universal preva-
lence of sacrifice rather points to Divine prescription
rather than to man’s invention as its proper source. Had
Divine worship been of purely human origin, i t is almost
certain t h a t greater diversity would have prevailed in its
forms. Besides, the fact t h a t the mode of worship was not
left to huinan ingenuity under the law, and t h a t will-
worship is specifically condemned under the Christian dis-
pensation (Col. 2 : 2 3 ) , favors the presumption t h a t it was
Divinely appointed from t h e first.” Campbell (CS, 3 8 ) :
“Sacrifice, doubtless, is as old as the Fall. T h e institution
of it is not recorded by Moses. B u t he informs us t h a t
God had respect for Abel’s offering, and accepted from
him a slaiu lamb. Now had it been a human institution,
this could not have been the case; for a divine warrant has
always been essential to any acceptable worship. The ques-
tion, ‘Who has required this a t your hands?’ must always
be answered by a ‘thus saith the Lord,’ before an offering
of mortal man can be acknowledged by the Lawgiver of
the universe. ‘In vain,’ said the Great Teacher, ‘do you
worship God, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men,’ God accepted t h e sacrifices of Noah, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, etc., and in t h e Jewish system gave many
laws and enactments concerning it.” Campbell (CS, 3 8,
n.) : “It is a curious and remarkable fact, t h a t God cov-
ered Adam and Eve with the skins of tlie first victims of
death, instead of their fig-leaf robes. This may have pre-
figured the fact t h a t , while sin was atoned or expiated as
respects God by the life of t h e victim, tlie effect as re-
spects man was a covering for his nakedness and shame,
or his sin, which divested him of his primitive innocence
and beauty, and covered him with ignominy and reproach.”
We cannot imagine t h a t Cain and Abel themselves origi-
nated the idea of bringing offerings to the Lord. Evi-
dently, as Errett writes (EB, ii7 loco) : “God had made
391
 4:l-7 GENESIS
known to our first parents some means and methods of
approach to Him, and their children were trained in the
observance of these.”
(2) B y its universality. (For an excellent example of
sacrificial rites as practised by the Greeks under Agamem-
non, during the Trojan War, see Homer’s Illiad, Bk. I, 11.
428-487.) As Faber has written: “Throughout the whole
world there is a notion prevalent that the gods can be
appeased only by bloody sacrifices. There is no heathen
people that can specify a time when they were without
sacrifice. All have had it from a time which is not
reached by their genuine records. Tradition alone can be
brought forward to account for its origin.’’ Again, Dum-
melow (CHB, Intro., 139) : “The dependence on an unseen
spiritual being, or beings; the consciousness of broken
; the consequent need of some new, heaven-
co11111it~iii01i
given means of access-these ideas, as we11 as the simpler
and more childlike thought of tribute or of free-will
offerings of homage and thankfulness, lie a t the root of
those sacrificial customs in which religion has always ex-
pressed itself even among pagans:” Toy (IHR, 505, 506) :
“The various theories of the origin and efficacy of sacrifice
(omitting the ambassadorial conception) are thus reducible
to three types: it is regarded as a gift, as a substitution, or
as an act of securing union (physical or spiritual) with
the divine. These have all maintained themselves, in one
form or another, up to the present day.” As with respect
to all universal traditions, e.g., those of a Tree of Life,
man’s Golden Age of innocence, his Temptation and Fall,
the role of Satan in these events, .Noah’s Flood, etc., so it
is with that of the institution of Sacrifice. It points up
two facts in bold relief: ( a ) the fact of diffusion from a
common origin, and ( b ) the fact of corruptions, by diffu-
sion, of a n original purity. Concepts that are so wide-
spread as to be woveii into the traditions of peoples every-
W I ~ C Y C ,110 matter how degenerate they m a y have become
392
 THE BEGINNJNG OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-F
as a r.csiilt of lioiiiilar diffiisioii, lioiut back iiriniistaRahly
t o gcrriiine originals. N o couiitci.frit cvci~iJ,\ istrd that ilia‘
I? of 1)res i i 1)/)ow a K P 11 ii i 11
(1.

( 3 ) B y the distinc.tiori bot wrcri cleari aiiti‘ iiriclcaii alii-

m d s , explicitly stated to have prevailed as early as the time
of Noah (Gen. 7 : 2 ) . It follows by necessary inference
t h a t this distinction must have been characteristic of t h e
institution of sacrifice from t h e time of the Fall and the
consequent ordination of t h e elements of true religion.
(4) B y the cor.roborativc testimony of Srr.i/itiirr: as evi-
denced (a) by the correlation of such passages as Heb,
11:4 and Rom. 10:17; (b) by the tenor of Bible teaching
from beginning to end t h a t animal sacrifice under the Old
Covenant was substitutionary, hence typical of the great
Antitype, the Lamb of God, whose Vicarious Sacrifice
provides Atonenleiit (covering) for the sin of manltind
(John 3:16, 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7, I Pet. 2:24, Heb. 9:26; cf.
Isa. 5 3 , 6 3 : l ) . (It must be remembered t h a t there was no
remission of sin under the Old Covenant, but only a “pass-
ing over” of sin by Yahweh from year to pear. Cf. Rom,
3:21-26; Acts 17:30, 14:16; Heb. 9:G-10, 9:23-28, 1 0 : l -
4, etc.)
IO. The Busic Dcsigri of Surrificr, that is, in God’s Eter-
nal Purpose, was twofold: (1) To give to the sinner a
means of approaching God and to give to God a place of
meeting with the sinner; and (2) as stated above, to point
forward in type to the Supreme Sacrifice a t C a l ~ a r y every
:
Patriarchal and Jewish altar prefigured the death of God’s
Only Begotten, Christ our Passover ( J O ~ I I1:29, 2 Cor.
5 :7) . God’s positive ordinances are divine appointments.
When a man agrees, for instance, to meet a friend a t a
certain time and place, t h a t is an appointment. So God’s
positive ordinances are Divine appointments where, Divine
grace and human faith meet in a holy tryst. In olden
times, God and man met at the altar of sacrifice (Gen,
2 2 : 1-19, Exo. 20:24-26). Similarly, the Christian ordi-
393
 4: 1 - j GENESIS
nances are Divine appointments. In the ordinance of
Christian baptism, God meets the penitent believer and
there confers upon him, through the efficacy of the aton-
ing blood of Christ, the full and free blessing of remission
of sins. Hence, baptism is said in Scripture to be the insti-
tution in which sins are washed away (Acts 22:16) ; and
is also said explicitly to be for salvation (Mark 16:16, 1
Pet. 3 : 2 1 ) , for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), and for
induction into Christ (Gal. 3 :26-27). The Lord’s Supper
is likewise the divinely-appointed observance in which the
elect of God under the New Covenant meet with their
Savior, King, and Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, in solemn
religious convocation and communion, on each first day of
the week (Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20, Acts 20:7; 1
Cor. 10:16, 11:23-29, 16:l-2, etc.). On the human side,
then, the ordinances are essentially manifestations and acts
of faith. When the truth is once fully appreciated by
Christian people that the Lord’s ordinances are not rites,
forms or meaningless ceremonies, but solemn, spiritual,
heart acts, essentially acts of faith, and solemn meetings
with our Heavenly Father and with our Great Redeemer,
then indeed a great spiritual awakening will be engendered
throughout the whole of Christendom. Then, but not
until then, it may be possible for Christian unity to be
achieved (John 17:20-21). The change most needed in
our time is a proper evaluation of the Divine ordinances
in the light of Scripture teaching (cf. Rom. 6:1-11, 6:17).
11. The Fourfold Significance of Sacrifice. ( 1 ) I t is a
propitiation, in the sense that it is designed to satisfy the
demands of justice on the sinner (cf. Rom. 3:21; 1 John
2:2, 4:10). God’s moral kingdom, like His physical world,
is established upon a foundation of Divine law. Trans-
gression of this Divine law is sin ( I John 3 : 4 ) . Conse-
quently, when the Divine law is disobeyed, justice requires
t h a t something be done about it, in order that the sanctity
and majesty of the law may be properly sustained. Even
394
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:l-7
under human government, to allow infraction of the civil
law to go unpunished or unpropitiated, is to encourage
further violation and rebellion, aiid eventually, in effect
a t least, to completely nullify the law itself. A great many
human teachers, in their eagerness to emphasize the love of
God, completely. ignore the fact of His unfailing justice
(Psa. 8 9 : 1 4 ) , In virtue of His justice, therefore, He can-
not consistently allow transgression of His laws to go un-
propitiated (unvindicated) and a t the same time extend
mercy to t h e transgressor. To do so would be to put a
premium on sin and thus to undermine the foundations
of His government. Campbell (CS, 39) : “The indignity
offered His person, authority and government, by the
rebellion of man, as also the good of all His creatures, made
it impossible for Him, according to justice, eternal right,
and His own benevolence, to show mercy without sacrifice.
. . . In this sense only, God could not be gracious to man
in forgiving him without a propitiation, or soinetliing t h a t
could justify Him both to Himself and all His creatures.”
In short, God could not be wholly just aiid extend mercy
to the sinner, without a n offering from or for t h e latter,
sufficient to satisfy the claims of perfect Justice with
respect to the Divine law violated. (Cf. Rom. 3:24-26.)
Propitiation is, in a sense, a legal term. ( 2 ) I f is a 1 ~ ~ 0 1 7 -
riliafioii, in tlie sense t h a t it is designed to bring tlie of-
fended party and the offender together, and so to make
peace between them. Insofar as it honors law and justice,
then, sacrifice reconciles God to forgive; and insofar as it
brings love and mercy to tlie offender, it overcoines the
rebellion in his heart and recoiiciles liini to his off ended
Sovereign. Campbell (CS, 40) : “God’s ‘anger is turned
away’; not a turbulent passion, not a n implacable wrath,
but ‘#hat 717 o ~ a 1sc 11 f i l i ie 17 f of j i~sficc’ which demands the
puiiishment of violated law, is pacified or well pleased;
and man’s hatred and animosity against God is subdued,
overcome and destroyed in and by tlie same sacrifice.
397
4:l-5 GENESIS
Thus, in fact, it is, in reference to both parties, a recon-
ciliation.” It is that factor which makes coweiznizt rela-
tionship between God and man possible to both (Eph. 2:
15-16? 2 Cor. 5:18-20). ( 3 ) I t is an expiation, in the
sense t h a t it is designed actually to cleanse and purify the
heart of the guilt and pollution of sin. Campbell (CS,
40) : “The terms purification or cleansing are in the com-
mon version preferred to expintior?. . . . If any one prefer
pzirificntioti to expiation, or even clenizsitig to expiation,
so long as we understand each other, it is indeed a matter
of very easy forbearance. The main point is, that sacrifice
cancels sin, atones for sin, and puts it away.” “He put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26) : this is
expiation. ( 4 ) I t is n redeiiiptioii, in the sense that it is
designed to “buy back” the sinner from the bondage of
sin into which he has sold himself and to consecrate him
anew to the service of God. Rom. 3:24, 1 Cor. 6:19-20,
Acts 20:28; Gal. 3:13, 4:4-5; Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, 1 Tim.
2:5-6, Tit. 2:14; Heb. 9:12, 2:14-15; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, Rev.
5:9, etc. (5) Finally, it should be noted here that the
doctrine of Atoiiciiieiit is iiiseparnbly lijiked with the irr-
sfitiitioii of sacrifice, Atoiwiizeiit is cquiualeizt t o Propitin-
tioii. Campbell again (CS, 38, n.) : “The Hebrew term
cophc~,translated in the Greek Old Testament by ilasnzos,
and in the common English version by ntoiiciizeiit or pro-
pitiation, signifies B covering. The word cobher, ‘to cower,’
or ‘to itinkc ntoiicii?ciit,) denotes the object of sacrifice; and
hence Jesus is called the ilasiitos, the covering, propitiation,
or atonement for our sins.” (Cf. I John 2:2, 4:lO.)
T o make atonement, therefore, is to satisfy the claims of
justice with respect to the Divine law which has been
violated, and hence to provide a covering for the guilt,
and ultimately for the consequences, of the sins of all
persons who accept the Gift and by so doing enter into
covenant relationship with God. The Atonement, the
396
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:1- J
Propitiation, t h e Covering, the Gift, is God’s Only Begot-
ten (John 3 : 16) , Thew is 1 7 0 o f h ~ r .
12. Pagari Vrrsirs Biblical Sacrifice. The distinguished
Jew j sh a u tli or, Y eh ezlrel I<auf in a n n , c a 11s a t t e 11t ion to the
profound differences between the theories and practices of
sacrificial rites in the pagan world and those characteristic
of tlie Patriarchal and Jewish Dispelisations of Biblical
Iiistory. The pagan concepts he lists as follows (RI, 110-
11r ) : sacrifice ( 1) as providing nutriment for t h e gods,
( 2 ) as mystic union with God, and ( 3 ) as exerting influ-
ence on the Divine powers, “to heighten the powers of
good over the demonic powers of evil.” He writes as fol-
lows : “The mythological and magical framework t h a t lent
cosmic significance to sacrifice in paganism is wanting in
the Bible. YHWIl is not conceived of as dependent upon
food, drink, or any external source of power. This pre-
cludes the idea t h a t sacrifice is nutriment for the God.
. , , For biblical religion, it is decisive t h a t tlie mythological
setting of this conception is entirely wanting. . . . The
Biblical peace offering has been interpreted as a form of
communion; part is consumed by t h e deity (the f a t and
the blood), the rest by the offerer in what is assumed to
be a common meal with the deity. But this interpretation
has no warrant beyond the pagan models upon which i t is
based. The Bible itself says nothing about communion.
The peace offering is eaten ‘before’-never ‘with’-
YHWH (cf. c.g., Deut. 12:7, 1 8 ; 14:23, 26; 15320). The
Priestly Code malies the flesh of tlie peace offering t h e
property of YHWH. Tlie human partaker of it is, as it
were, a guest of YHWH; this is t h e nearness to God t h a t
is symbolized by eating tlie peace offering (Lev. 7:20 f . ) ,
Nothing supports the notion t h a t man becomes an associate
of the deity, is elevated for t h e moment to divine rank, or
shares in the life of the God. Joy, not mystic union, is
tlie basic emotional content of the Israelite cult; this joy
too is ‘before’-iiot ‘with’-YHWH (Deut. 12:12, 1 8 ,
397
4:j - 8 GENESIS
etc.) . The difference is fundamental, and its linguistic
expression, though subtle, is crucial. , . . Pagan purification
rites aim to influence the divine powers, to heighten the
powers of good over the demonic powers of evil. When
we examine their biblical analogues we find no echo of a
struggle between evil and good, no trace of either the
mythological or the magical element which underlies the
pagan idea.” (It should be noted here that hangovers of
these magical and mystical cults still persist in the theolo-
gies and rituals of institutional Christianity, although
absent from the Christianity of the New Testament. The
magical aspects persist in such dogmas as those of sacra-
mentalism, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, impana-
tion, baptismal regeneration, etc. ; the mystical, in alleged
special revelations, miraculous conversions, trances, indeed
all psychical (or metapsychical) phenomena of the various
forms of so-called ecstatic and orgiastic “religions.”) (Note
here especially the pertinent statement of W. Robertson
Smith (RSFI, 62) : “To reconcile the forgiving goodness
of God with His absolute justice, is one of the highest
problems of spiritual religion, which in Christianity is
solved by the doctrine of the atonement.”)
13. T h e First Mzirder (Gen. 4:5 b-8) .
r r j Arid Cuiri, was very wroth, urd his c ~ ~ i n t e i ~ a n c e
fell. 6 And Jehovah said ziiito Cain, W h y art thou
wroth? atid why is thy co~~~iteriarice faller?? 7 I f thoii
docst iuell, shall it not be lifted zip? diad if thoa doest
iiot iuell, si11 rozicheth a t the door: and ziiito thee shall
be its desire, but do thou rille ovey it. 8 And Cain
told Abel his brother. Aiid it came t o pass, when they
iuew it? the field, that Cain rose zip agairist Abel his
bivther, atid slew him.”
( 1 ) What a “human interest” story this i s ! More pro-
foundly realistic psychology is to be found in the Bible
than in any other book known to man! The Bible pictures
human beings just as they arc-some good, some bad, some
398
 THE BEGINNING OF T R U E RELIGION 4:J-g
mediocre; no doubt this is the reason why so many huniaii
rebels, puffed up in their own conceits, hate the Bible and
will do anything in their power to discredit it. The apostle
puts all such persons in tlie class to whicli they really
belong: they are t h e wilfully ignorant, blinded by tlie god
of this world ( 2 Cor. 4:4, 2 Pet. 3: j), There are other
causes of moral evil than ignorance, and one of the most
potent of these is a perverted will. ( 2 ) Cain was very
wrofk, literally iiicciisccl (inflamed) : %e wrath was a fire
in his soul” (Lange) : cf. Jer. 15 : 14, 17:4. N o sorrow
for sin here, “no spirit of inquiry, self -examination, prayer
to God for light or pardon, clearly showing t h a t Cain was
far from the right state of mind” (Murphy), Not a
semblance of recognition of his own dereliction: nothing
b u t fierce resentment against his brother and most cer-
tainly resenttnent toward God, “It is cominoii for those
who have rendered themselves unworthy of God’s favor
to have indignation against those who are dignified by it”
(M. Henry), (Note how the Pharisees walked in the way
of Cain, Luke l l : j 2 , ) Evil is always resentful in the
presence of the good, because in the light of the good the
evil is shown up in its true colors, and resents tlie expose.
Think how prone professing Christians are to put the
blame on God when overtaken by adversity (“God
shouldn’t have done this to me!”), T h e world, even tlie
church, is filled with puny souls who can only whimper
and whine in t h e hour of tribulation (cf. Jolin 16: 3 3 ) .
( 3 ) “His coi/iifeiiaiice fell.” “Cain hung down his head,
and looked upon the earth. This is t h e posture of one
darkly brooding (Jer, 3:12, Job 29:24), and prevails t o
this day in tlie East as a sign of evil plottings” (Lange) .
What a picture of tlie impudent, rebellious, sullen posture
and face of a spoiled brat! ( 3 ) Vu. 6, 7. Here we have
another instance of those vivid anthropomorphic portrayals
of our Heavenly Father dealing with t h e rebellious child
created in His own image, seeking to arrest him from a
3 99
4:j-8 GENESIS
precipitous plunge into an act of violence that would ruin
his whole life, as envy of the “true witness” welled up in
his heart. T o paraphrase Yahweh’s words of warning and
encouragement to do the right: “Why this consuming
anger, Cain? Why this sullenness? If you are doing the
good, your countenance will be radiant with joy. If you
are not doing what is right and good, then sin is couching
(“lieth”) at your heart’s door. Retrace your steps, amend
your offering, and rule over this beast that threatens you.”
As we listen to those words of Fatherly admonition and
encouragement to self -control and obedience, we recall the
words of the Psalmist, “Like as a father pitieth his chil-
dren, So Jehovah pitieth them that fear him. For he
knoweth our frame, H e remembereth that we are dust”
(Psa. 103 : 13, 14). Alas! as is so often the case, the warn-
ing went unheeded! The same warning comes ringing
down through the ages to all of God’s saints, even those of
our own time. If you are disgruntled a t the minister or
the congregation, critical of your brethren in Christ, and
have a tendency in your heart to speak evil things of those
who are trying to be Christians, just remember that sin is
couching (lying, lurking) a t the door of your heart; and,
unless with our Lord’s help, you assert your control of
circumstances, sin will spring upon you like a wild beast
and drag you down to the depths of infamy. Cf. Eph.
6:16-
“Life is one continued battle,
Never ended, never o’er;
And the Christian’s path to glory
Is a conflict evermore.

“Satan ever watches round him,

Seeks to find the weakest part;
And in moments most unheeded
Quickly throws his fiery dart.”
400
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4: 5-8 ’’
(4) The Mmrder, V.8. Y n the field”-this “means t h e
open country, where Cain thought he would be safe from
observationy7(IBG, li 19) , Whitelaw (PCG, 80) : “Beyond
all question the historian designs t o describe not a n act of
culpable homicide, but a deed of red-handed murder; yet
the impression which his language conveys is that of a
crime rather suddenly conceived and hurriedly performed
than deliberately planned and treacherously executed.”
“Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”
Heavenly counsel failed to deter the rebel; the wild beast
couching a t his heart’s door sprang, and the tragic deed
was done. N o t just a homicide, but a fratricide! Rage,
born of consuming envy, becomes lust for blood. As it
has been said of the crucifixion of Jesus: Hate is a passion
never stilled, until it crucifies (1 John 3 : 1 5 , John 8:44).
Thus did the first Man become a prey of Satan, and his
first-born a murderer and an outcast. Bowie (IBG, 5 1 8 ) :
“It was a strange contradiction that the first murder came
with an act of worship. It was while he was approaching
God that Cain knew how much he hated his brother. H e
felt frustrated because he felt somehow that God’s truth
ranked Abel higher than himself; and if he knew within
himself that this was what he deserved, he struck out all
the more blindly and bitterly against the superiority t h a t
shamed him. This is the explanation of the vindictive
hostility that men may express toward those whose achieve-
ments they envy-the hostility of the citizen to a great
political leader or the dislike which a minister may feel for
a more honored brother minister.”
14. A Secoiid Inquest (Gen. 4:9-1 r ) .
“9 And JeJ3ovaJ3 said urito Caiii, Whew is Abel thy
brother? Aiid he said, I kiiow not: a m I i i z y bitother’s
Jteeper? 1 0 Aiid he said, Mbaf hast thoi.~done? the
voice of thy brother’s blood crieth m t o nae f r o m the
ground. I 1 Aiid iiow cirrsed art thou f r o m the
ground, wJgich kath opelied its mouth t o receive tJy1
40 1
 4:9-1 J GENESIS
brother’s blood from thy hand; 12 when thou tillest
the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee its
strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be in
the earth. 1 3 Amd Cain said unto Jehovah, M y punish-
ment is greater thun I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast
driven nae out this day fronz the face of the ground;
a i d from. thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a
fzigitive a i d n wanderer in the earth; and it shall come
to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me. IF
And Jehovah said urzto Cain, Theref ore whosoever
slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken o n him seuen-
fold. And Jehovah appointed a sign for CaiM, lest any
fi~zdinghim should smite him.”
(1) A second inquest: why so designated? Because this
is essentially a repetition of the substance of Gen. 3 : 9 - 1 3 .
Again the loving Father seeks to bring His rebellious son
to repentance and confession (catharsis), the only possible
way to restoration and inner peace for the rebel. ( 2 )
V. 9. The inqztisitioi~no doubt took place at the custom-
ary place of sacrifice and a t the time of the next offering.
Did God speak through Adam, the father? or through
Cain’s own conscience? Or directly and vocally t o Cain
himself, in words “uttered from between the Cherubim”
(3:24) ? Note the question: “a question fitted to go
straight to the murderer’s conscience, and no less fitted to
rouse his wrathful jealousy, as showing how truly Abel
was the beloved one.” Not that Yahweh’s question was in
any sense the cause of Cain’s jealousy, but that it brought
out the interior wrathful jealousy that was already consum-
ing the rebel’s heart. (It is often said that national pro-
hibition of the nineteen-twenties brought about the spread
of lawlessness. This we deny. It simply brought to the
surface the lawlessness that was already there, in the hearts
of the people.) ( 3 ) Note Cain’s answer. What a com-
bination of bravado, flippancy, sheer impudence-every-
thing but the manifestation of an honest and good heart
402
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:9-1j
(Luke 8 : 1 5 ) ! Whitelaw, quoting Willet (PCG, 80) : “He
showeth himself a liar in saying, ‘I know not’; wicked aiid
profalie in thinking he could hide his sin from God; uiijust
in denying himself to be his brother’s keeper; obstiiiafe aiid
desperate in not confessing his sin.” (Cf. Psa. 10.) H o w
sin spreads: a t first, murder; now, lying, deceit, effrontery
and prof aiiity (feeling himself tracked by avenging justice,
Cain resorts to the use of every weapon in t h e arsenal of
sin!). “Am I my brother’s keeper?” A qinesfion of uni-
versal significance: oiie that i i z u s t be a n s w e ~ e diii some w a y
by every soli and daughter of Adam (cf. Matt. 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 ) .
Murphy (MG, 1 5 3 ) : “There is, as usual, an atom of truth
mingled with the amazing falsehood of this surly response.
N o man is the absolute keeper of his brother, so as to be
responsible for his safety when he is not present. This is
what Cain means to insinuate, But every man is his
brother’s keeper so far that he is not himself to lay t h e
hand of violence on him, nor suffer another to do so if h e
can hinder it. This sort of keeping, the Almighty has a
right to demand of every one-the first part of it on the
ground of mere justice, t h e second on that of love. But
Cain’s reply betrays a desperate resort to falsehood, a total
estrangement of feeling, a quenching of brotherly love, a
predominance of t h a t self ishness which freezes affection
and kindles hatred. This is the way of Cain (Jude 11) .”
(4) Vv, 10-12. Yahweh sees t h a t His attempt to arouse
self -examination in t h e sinner has not elicited t h e slightest
evidence of a favorable response. Cain’s character has
proved itself to be tragically corrupt, even to t h e extent
of manifesting not even the slightest appreciation of God’s
love and mercy. Hence, thunders Yahweh: “What hast
thou done?”-a question that puts in bold relief the sheer
enormity of the course of sin t h a t Cain had chosen to
pursue! “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto
me from the ground.” Note t h e repeated phrase, “thy
brother”: is not fratricide a truly heinous form of horni-
4.0 3
4:9-1J GENESIS
cide? Knowing that the guilty fratricide was not going to
confess his sin, Yahweh charged him with it directly. The
ground which had already been cursed so that it yielded
thorns and thistles (3:18) was now cursed by the blood
of the first martyr, Abel the righteous (Matt. 2 3 : 3 5 , 1
John 3 :12). This was the first curse pronounced upon a
human being: only the serpent had been cursed in Eden;
Adam and Eve had not (3:14). Murphy defines a curse
thus (MG, 21 1) : “A curse is any privation, inferiority, or
other ill, expressed in the form of a doom, and bearing,
not always upon the object directly expressed, but upon
the party who is in the transgression.” In the case before
us, Abel’s blood cried out to God for the punishment of
the murderer, and that same cry has rung down through
the ages proclaiming retribution upon the shedder of ino-
cent blood. Anthropologists will testify uniformly that no
people has ever been found without a customary or statu-
tory law for the punishment of murder. (The “blood
feud” or “blood revenge,” the most common form of the
lex talio/zis, (the infliction of death upon a murderer by
the relatives of his victim), was the only device which men
had, for the prevention of murder; later, of course, with
the formation of nations, this right of vindication was
taken from individuals and families and put under the
authority of the state. Incidentally, wirzdicutioi2 is the
proper term to use here, as expressing the function of
punishment, rather than “vengeance” or “revenge”: true
law never seeks revenge, but it must seek vindication when
violated, that is, it must have a penalty for violation, and
that penalty is designed to sustain the majesty of the law
itself, that is, t o vindicate fhe jastice of the luw and of
the will of the lawgiver as well. Law is not law at all,
lacking a penalty for its violation, the power to enforce
the penalty, and the actual enforcement of it, if and when
violated.) (It must be understood, of course, that murder
is properly defined as the taking of the life of another
404
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:9-15
jmsoii on one’s ow/? authority and with malice afore-
thought: t h a t is, it is a n individual act, a crime under t h e
civil law, a siii under the moral law, This definition of
tlie act h a s its ethical basis in two sublime truths, namely,
that rife i s the g i f t of God, aiid heiice i i ~ a i i ’ s greatest good
(Gen. 2:7, Acts 17:24-25). These have always been, and
still are, the foundation stones of our Western cultural
heritage.) (Note t h a t in Abel’s case, tlie blood seeks not
retribution on its own, b u t cries out unto Yahweh for it.
For instaiices of sin crying out to God, see Gen. 18:20-21,
19:13; Exo. 3:9; Heb. 12:24; Jas. 1:4.) Murphy (MG,
154) : “Tlie curse which now fell on Cain was in some
sense retributive, as it sprang from tlie soil which received
his brother’s blood. The particulars of it are t h e with-
drawal of t h e full strength or fruitfulness of the soil from
him, and tlie degradation from tlie state of a settled
dweller in the presence of God, to t h a t of a vagabond in
tlie earth.” Again (MG, 15 1) : “It is plain t h a t no man
has a n inherent right to inflict t h e sanction of a broken
law on t h e transgressor. This right belongs origiiially to
the Creator, and derivatively only to those whom He has
intrusted with the dispensation of civil government accord-
ing to established laws” (cf. Rom. 13:1-7, Matt. 22:21).
( 5 ) Note well t h a t this Diviiie ai7atlmii.a was t o coiwe
11~017 Caiii f r o m the ground, and in two ways: (a) iv
refiising kin? its substance: a further look at Cain’s prog-
eny, as we shall see later, malres it clear t h a t they did not
make any success of agriculture; this refusal of tlie earth
to yield its substaiice to them seeins to have pushed them
into tlie building of cities and t h e development of what
we would today call the useful arts; and (b) in refiisiiig
h i i z a hoiiie: lie aiid his posterity became wanderers, an
unsettled, restless people, prone to violence, without stabil-
ity a n d without faith. Tlie further study of Cain’s de-
scendants will surely disclose their basic irreligiousness,
secularism (worldliness) , proneness to pride in their own
40 1
4:9-1 S GENESIS
conceits, even wickedness and violence, Thus the earth
did not become a participant in the curse pronounced on
Cain, but God’s minister of that curse. (There is a special
significance, it seems to me, in these Divine anathemas
having reference to the ground (earth) and to those crea-
tures who were to be punished through the agency of the
ground. Surely, they point up the Divine repudiation of,
and warning against, the Cult of Fertility which prevailed
throughout the entire ancient pagan world, and which
had its roots in the worship of the Earth Mother (in Greek,
Gc-iua2Ler, or Demeter; and in Latin, Term M a t e r ) . This
Cult, with its practices of ritual prostitution, sexual pro-
miscuity, phallic worship, and like perversions-indeed the
grossest forms of immorality-was the foremost obstacle
to the spread of the knowledge of the living and true God
throughout the world of Old Testament times and the
ever-present temptation to that people whom God called
out to preserve this knowledge, the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham, to forsake their Divine calling and election for the
idolatrous practices of their heathen neighbors and the
satisfaction of their own carnal lusts.)
,( 6 ) V. 1 3. “My punishment is greater than I can bear.’’
Utter insensitivity to personal guilt now leads to self-pity,
the psychological refuge of a man who will not be honest
with himself 3r with God by facing up to the facts. As
if to say, “Jehovah, you are not treating me fairly! You
are being unjust to me!’’ A repetition of Satan’s rebellious
charge that our God is a tyrant! The cry of every fanati-
cal devotee of unlimited “personal liberty.” The cry of a
spoiled brat. (How anyone can question the fact that
Cain’s wickedness was real and that it stemmed from his
interior prof anity-disregard for divine things-and hence
from his total lack of faith, is beyond our comprehension.
Everything he said and did attests the truth of the esplana-
tion given in Hebrews 11:4. Rejection of this thoroughly
trustworthy Biblical explanation is surely a mark of igno-
40 6
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4:9-15
ranee, or that of a perverted wilI directed by a closed mind
(cf. 2 Pet. 3 : j , Matt. 1?:14, Isn. 6:8-10, Matt, 13:14-15,
Acts 2 8 : 2 j - 2 8 , 2 Cor, 3 : 1 ? , etc,). Even though some
measure of remorse might be indicated by Cain’s outcry
here, still and all, it is remorse saturated with despair, the
reaction t h a t terminates in repentance unto spiritual death
( 2 Cor, 7:10), or, as in the case of Judas, unto physical
death by suicide (Matt. 27:3-10, Acts 1: 16-19). Cain’s
sorrow, if anything, was “ t h e sorrow of the world,” t h e
sorrow t h a t arises from complete lack of any understanding
of God’s ineffable grace,
(7) Vv. 14-1j. ( a ) Cain’s language here is clearly a
reference to t h a t punitive device of early familial and
tribal life known as the “blood feud,” “blood revenge,”
the device which early man found necessary to prevent
wholesale murder and thus to maintain social order (see
~ i i f i ~ u ) In . the course of time, as population increased,
this device began to create a serious problem. The great
Greek writer of tragedy, Aeschylus, linown as “the poet
of great ideas,” deals with t h e problem in what is known
as his Orestean trilogy, consisting of t h e three plays, t h e
Agaiiieiiinon, the Choephoipi, and the EiLuieiiides. In the
A g u i i ? c i i ~ i i o i i ,the Greek chieftain is pictured as returning
from the conquest of Troy, only to face the smoldering
wrath of his wife Clytemnestra, who hated him because
of his sacrifice of their daughter Iphigenia a t Aulis (sup-
posedly to quell the fury of t h e goddess Artemis which had
been aroused by Agamemiion’s killing of a deer in one of
her sacred groves: a t any rate this was Agamemnon’s ver-
sion of t h e incident). Soon after reaching Argos, Aga-
memnon was murdered by Clytemnestra and her paramour,
Aegisthus. Orestes, the son, was saved from the same f a t e by
his sister Electra who had spirited him away secretly to the
court of t h e Phoenician king, Strophius, whose wife was
Agamemnon’s sister. There Orestes formed a close frieiid-
ship with the king’s son, Pylades. On attaining maturity
407
 4:9-1 S GENESIS
Orestes went secretly with Pylades to Argos, where, on the
authority of Apollo, at the tomb of Agamemnon he exe-
cuted strict justice (Dike) by killing both Clytemnestra
and Aegisthus. This part of the drama is presented in the
Choejkcwi (“The Libation Bearers”), But Orestes now
was not just an ordinary executioner in the ordinary sense
of “blood revenge”; his crime was matricide, a particularly
heinous kind of killing. Hence, who was now to execute
the demands of justice on Orestes? And who should kill
the man who would kill Orestes, all, of course, in the name
of rigid legal justice? How long was this vicious circle to
continue? Was there any way of putting an end to it?
If so, how was this to be done without violating justice in
some way? Orestes is now beset by the Furies: he goes
crazy and begins to wander from land to land, until
finally, again by the advice of Apollo, he takes refuge in
the temple of Athena at Athens. How does Aeschylus
resolve the issue, essentially a problem of finding a way
of tempering justice with the more humane “quality of
mercy”? The dramatist uses the device of the dezis ex
mnchina. He brings Athena, the goddess of wisdom, into
the picture; she convenes the Court of the Areopagus to
hear his plea. Orestes is acquitted by this Court, becomes
sane again, and the Furies are transformed into the Ezirnen-
ides (“The Benignant Ones”). The profound moral prob-
lem thus elaborated by Aeschylus was twofold: the deeply
felt doctrine of strict legal justice, but also the existence
in Heaven of an Understanding and a Will that is supreme
even over the Law. (The same profound doctrine is to be
found also in the Arzfigorw of Sophocles, LCL edition, p.
349, 11 450 f f . ) . Thus it will be seen that the dramatist
resolved this problem in precisely the same way in which
man resolved it, that is, by taking the execution of the
penalty away from the jurisdiction of the family and put-
ting it under the authority of the state (“the People vs.
John Doe”). ( b ) “Whosoever findeth me,” cried Cain,
40 8
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4 : ? - 1 ~
“shall slay me.” This raises the question: Jvst w h a t aiid
h o w iwany other Persolis were 011 earth at the t i m e to
execvte blood revenge? Or, as often stated by the caviler:
W h e r e did Cain get his wife? (cf. v. 17). (A carping
old reprobate once said to an old-time evangelist: “If you
will show m e how and where Cain got his wife, I’ll ‘jine’
the church.” The evangelist was equal to the challenge.
He answered: “Old man, until you can quit worrying
about other men’s wives, you’re not f i t to ‘jine’ the church
or anything else t h a t is decent.”) Cornfeld writes (AtD,
2 3 ) : “Where did Cain get his wife, if Abel and Cain were
Adam and Eve’s only children? It is clear that the Cain
and Abel story belonged to a different tradition which
assumed the presence of other people in the world besides
the family of Adam. The kind of rational and critical
interest which characterizes our age was remote from the
ancient narrators, particularly when it came to tracing
ancestraI genealogies.” T. Lewis (Lange, CDHCG, 2 5 9 )
suggests that neither Adam nor Cain may have had any
reason to know that the earth was not populated with
their kind. This view, however, seems a bit far-fetched.
T h e most reasoliable explanatiov is that Caiii married into
the Adanzic fanzily iiito w h i c h he was born. W e are told
that after 130 years Adam begat Seth, and that through-
out his long life he begat sons and daughters (Gen. 5 : 3 -
f ) ; in proportion to his longevity lie must have sired
progeny of some dimensions (cf. Exo. 12:37-42). Hence
in the first 130 years of the conjugal union of Adam and
Eve, undoubtedly other, many other, children were born
to them. The matter of the identity of Cain’s wife is no
problem, He might even have married one of his own
sisters: this would not have been regarded as incest during
the infancy of the race. (Cf. Acts 17:30, also Gen. 20:
12-liere we are told that Abraham married his half-
sister). Certainly Adam’s offspring were not limited t o
just the two brothers and their wives (provided t h a t Abel
409
4:9-15 GENESIS
also was a married man) at the time of Abel’s murder.
T h e reason f o r the Biblical story of Cain, Abel, and Seth
exclaisively, again is one that will not be apprehended b y
the person who fails to take into consideration the teacb-
ing of the Bible us a whole. T h e yeason is a very simple
oiie, namely, that the Bible is not intended to be a history
of the race, but the history only o f the Messiatzic Liize or
Getienlogy, the Line that began with A d a m atzd culminated
iii Jesus Chist. (Luke apparently gives the real genealogy
through Mary, Luke 3:23-Joseph was the son-in-law of
Heli; Matthew, writing specifically to the Jews, gives the
legal genealogy, Matt. 1:16.) There is but otw grand
design in the content of the Bible f r o m beginning to end,
tianzely, t o provide the aviderice in oyacle, prophecy, a i d
hstorical f ulf ilmetit t o aaithetzticate the Messiahship of
Jestis, (Cf. Matt. 16:16, John 20:30-31, Rom. 10:9-10.)
O n l y when appvouched and stzidied from this Point of
view, does the Bible have the significance tbut its Author,
the H o l y Spirit, designed it t o have, that is, the failness of
t h e truth to liberate ~ n mf r o m the guilt and f r o m the
conseqzietices of sit? (John 8:31-32, 1 Thess. 5:23). (Cf.
1 Pet. 1:10-12, 2 Pet. 1:21, John 16:7-15, 1 Cor. 2:6-16.)
( c ) Cain’s contemplation of his miserable doom filled
his guilty heart with apprehension that some of his own
kind in the flesh might take his life in retaliation (as re-
quired by the lex talionis) on hearing of his wanton
slaughter of his brother Abel. But, again, as in his cry,
“from thy face shall I be hid,” he manifests his utter
insensitivity to the fact of God’s ineffable grace. Yah-
weh’s face was not turned away from him completely.
O n the contrary, he received from God a twofold re-
sponse: first, the promise that anyone who might slay him
would incur vengeance sevenfold (that is, Cain’s violent
death, should it occur, would be fully avenged); second,
Yahweh “appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him
should slay him.” Commentators disagree as to whether
410
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION 4 :9- 1 li
this sign was a visible one for the purpose of warning
away would-be avengers, or an inward assurance to Cain
himself that he should not suffer “blood revenge” a t the
hands of a kinsman. “In the case of Cain’s murderer there
was to be no mitigation of the penalty as in the case of
Cain himself; on the contrary, he would be visited more
severely than Cain, as being guilty not only of homicide,
but of transgressing the Divine commandment which said
that Cain was to live” (Whitelaw, PCG, 8 2 ) . What was
this “mark of Cain?” N o one knows. The essential facts
about it are t h a t it was not a sign of God’s forgiveness,
but only a pledge of His protection; t h a t it was not a
brand of shame, but a “covering” of Divine grace; t h a t
it served to establish the principle, at the very outset of
man’s life on earth, t h a t vindication belongs to God (Rom.
12:19, 2 Thess. 1 : 8 ) . Murphy (MG, 1 5 6 ) : “The whole
dealing of the Almighty was calculated to have a soften-
ing, conscience-awakening, and hope-inspiring effect on
the murderer’s heart.” Whether this desired reformation
(regeneration) of Cain ever occurred, we do not know;
however, judging from the general irreligiousness of his
posterity as indicated in the remaining part of chapter 4,
t h e evidence is wholly to the contrary. After all, even
though subhumarr nature is bowerless to resist the decrees
of God, there is oiie power in the uiiiverse which caii resist
His Will aiid, sorry t o say, His love-that power is the
himan will (John 5:40, Matt. 23:37-39, Acts 7:Yl-53).
:.r :.r >: :.r :)

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

“AinI My Blrofher’s Keeper”
Cain’s profane reply to God’s first query reveals t h e
spirit of a social outcast. But his antisocial attitude was
only part and parcel of his murderous act. Practically
all anarchists become such through their own crimes
against society. If we are not willing to help those about
41 1
4:9-1 Y GENESIS
us, we are bound to be willing to harm them and to drag
them down. The entire human race is bound up in one
bundle of interdependence, and every human being must
choose between social altruism and social animosity.
If it is impossible for anyone to keep from radiating
moral or immoral influence, as the case may be, how much
more so for God’s saints. The one who professes to be a
Christian takes upon himself the obligations inherent in
spiritual brotherhood, whose fundamental laws are love for
God and love for his fellows, and especially for those who
are of the household of the Faith (Matt. 22:34-40, 25:31-
46; Luke 10:25-37; Jas. 1:27; Rom. 14:21; Gal. 6 : 2 , etc.).
Conversion is the Passing f r o m the kingdom of this world,
in which the ruling principle of life, individual and social,
is selfishness, the choice of self’s way of doing things above
God’s way of doing things, into the Kingdom of Christ,
the Reign of Messiah, in which the ruling principle of life,
both individually and collectively, is sacrifice, the choice
of God’s way of doing things above man’s way of doing
things (Acts 26:17, Matt. 6:31-34, Rom. 12:l-2, Gal. 1:
16-25). Love is the fulfilment of the law (Rorn. 13:lO);
in the very nature of the case, love is the motive which
prompts Christians, members of the Body, to bear one
another’s burdens and so to fulfil the law of Christ (Gal.
6:2; 1 John 4:7-11; 1 Cor. 9:21; Rorn. 8:2; Jas. 1:25,
2:8, 2 : 1 2 ) .
The Voice That Cries From the Ground
“The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from
the ground,” said Yahweh to Cain. God speaks in the
same words today to the unbeliever, the murderer, the
fornicator, the adulterer, the abuser of himself with men,
the sorcerer, the idolater, the drunkard, the coveter, the
seducer, the liar-indeed all who live and die outside of
Christ. In this universal sense (Rom. 3 : 2 3 ) , it is the
blood of Christ-the blood “that speaketh better than that
412
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
of Abel” (Heb, 12:24)-the blood that was shed for an
Atoiiement for the sin of the world (John 1: 2 9 ) , t h a t
cries out from the ground for the execution of justice
upon all who refuse to shelter themselves by faith under
this Heavenly Covering ( 2 Cor. 5 :2 1, Heb. 1 0 :26-3 1) .
And so will God speak to you in Judgment, fellow Chris-
tians, if you allow your loved ones to live and die without
Christ, without your speaking a word to them about their
soul’s salvation. So will He speak to you, if you permit
t h e multitudes to go past your door, down the broad way
that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14), without ever a
warning word, a feeling of concern, or a manifestation of
interest on your part, Are you going through life with-
out ever a thought of the millions who are dying without
Christ and the Redemption which He has freely provided?
The business of the Church is to snatch precious souls
from the burning. The Church of our time can never
regain its power until it undergoes a rebirth of the evan-
gelistic passion t h a t characterized the saints of the apostolic
age (Acts 8:4, 1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 24:14). Unfortunately
for man, his sins of omission seem to be far more numerous
than those of commission (Jas. 4:17, 1:22), And this
brand of sin is most flagrantly obvious today in the lacka-
daisical attitude of institutionalized Christianity with re-
spect to t h e Church’s mission to the unsaved: in all too
many instances the Great Commission seems to be “the
lost word” (Matt. 28:18-20).
“Christ has no hands but our hands
To do His work today;
He has n o feet but our feet
To lead men in His way;
H e has n o tongue but our tongues
To tell men how He died;
He has no help but our help
T o bring them to His side.”
413
 GENESIS
The Cry of the Lost Soul
“My punishment is greater than I can bear,” was Cain’s
cry, not of confession, but of sheer desperation. “Through
ignorance of the divine character, he pronounced his sin
too great to be pardoned. It was not that he really knew
his sin, but that he knew not God. He fully exhibited
the terrible fruit of the fall in the very thought of God
to which he gave utterance. He did not want pardon,
because he did not want God. H e had no true sense of
his own condition, no aspirations after God, no intelligence
as to the ground of a sinner’s approach to God. He was
radically corrupt-f undamentally wrong, and all he
wanted was to get out of the presence of God, and lose
himself in the world and its pursuits” (C.H.M., NBG,
7Y) *
“From thy face I shall be hid.” To the foregoing it
should be added that Cain did not want God because he
did not, in any sense of the term, know God. Like Judas
who went out and hanged himself when he might have
enjoyed salvation on the terms of the Gospel, Cain, think-
ing himself beyond the pale of Divine compassion and
mercy, resigned himself to an earthbound existence. “He
thought he could live well without God, and he therefore
set about decorating the world as well as he could, for the
purpose of making it a respectable place, and himself a
respectable man therein, though in God’s view it was under
the curse, and he was a fugitive and a vagabond” (C.H.M.,
NBG, 75).
Cain’s cry of desperation might well be said to have
been an archetype of the cry of lost souls in the Judgment.
Fully realizing a t last the awfulness of their complete loss
of God, they shall call on the mountains and the rocks to
fall upon them and hide them “from the face of him that
sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb”
(Rev. 6:15-17). Truly it will be “a fearful thing to fall
414
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
into the hands of the living God” (Heb, 10: 3 I ) , unre-
pentant, disobedient, a n d hence utterly rejected (Heb. 6:4-
8, 10:26-30; Rorn, 2;4-11; Matt. 25:41-46), In this
world the wheat and tlie tares must grow together until
the harvest (Matt. 13:24-30), B u t let no son of inan
question tlie fact that t h e will be a harvcst in which the
wheat shall be gathered into the garner (granary, Matt.
3:12) and the tares shall be burned with unquenchable
fire (cf. Matt. 1 3 : 3 6-43 ) . Whatever other sanctions may
overtalte the neglectful and the inipenitent a t the Last
Judgment (Acts 17:30-31), we can be sure that, again
as a consequence of their full realization of what eternal
loss of God and all good really means, the raging fires of
conscience will issue truly in “the weeping and the gnash-
ing of teeth.” Indeed it may well turn out t h a t memory
is the worm that never dies, and conscience the fire t h a t
is never quenched (cf. Luke 16:19-31, Mark 9:48, Isa.
66:24).
The Marks of Real Faith
Genuine faith always ( 1 ) does what God commands,
and (2) does it in the way God commands it to be done.
Errett (EB, 36) : “We sometimes listen to sneers at t h e
conscientious observance of ordinances, and often hear it
suggested that if 1170TalS had more attention, there need be
small concern about ritualistic observances. True, there
may be eiislavenient to a ritual, and especially to rituals
of human contrivance, which partake more of the nature
of Cain’s offering than of Abel’s; and when precision in
such observances is exalted above a pure morality, it is a
sad day alike for t h e church and tlie world. But let it
also be remeinbered that when God has appointed a ritual
observance, the same spirit of evil t h a t rejects it, or cor-
rupts it, will also, when occasion serves, reject also all tliat
is good in morals. Hence, the same evil spirit that led
Cain to despise God’s law of sacrifice, led him also to cast
41 5
 GENESIS
aside all moral restraints and to murder his brother. The
spirit of rebellion is the same, whether it strikes a t a divine
ordinance or at the life of a brother.”
We hear a great deal in our day about what is called
Vital Christianity (faith, religion, etc.) as distinguished
from what is called formal Christianity, etc. The Bible
makes no such distinctions. God’s ordinances are His ordi-
nances, regardless of their essential character, and not one
of them is to be trifled with. Everything in Christianity
is vitd or it is not of Christian faith.
“The Moral is commanded, because it is right; the Posi-
tive is right, because it is commanded.” In all Dispensa-
tions God has required of His elect both internal aizd exter-
~ a worship.
l T h e external, although embodying the moral
virtue of obedience, is designed to serve as a testimony to
the outside world. Baptism, for example, is the positive
institution in which the obedient believer witizesses to the
facts of the Gospel-the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ (1 Cor. 1 ~ : I - g ) ;hence, any act short of a burial
and resurrection (an immersion in water and an emersion
therefrom) vitiates the testimonial character of the ordi-
nance, and simply cmiqot be Scriptziral baptism. Again,
how often do we hear baptism spoken of as a “mere out-
ward act,” “mere external performance,” etc. This kind
of terminology is blasphemy: it is an evidence of the pro-
faiiity which characterized Cain’s attitude toward the ordi-
nance of sacrifice. When, in the name of both reason and
faith, did our Lord go into the business of ordaining “mere
tt
outward acts” or mere external performances”? There
is design in everything that God commands us to do: that
design embraces both inail’s good and God’s glory (Col.
3:17, 1 Cor. 10:31, Eph. 3:21, Rev. 7:12).
It is notoriously true that modifications, by human au-
thority, of God’s positive ordinances, have generally been
to serve the ends of cowei?ie/ice, In all likelihood Cain
416
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
was the first “substituter.” He brought the kind of offer-
ing which was the more coiivenient for him (by occupa-
tion he was a tiller of the ground) to bring to Yahweh,
It may well be said t h a t he substituted, for tlie lrind of
offering God had ordained, a n offering which he-Cain,
proud Cain-considered to be “just as good,” How many
millions in our day, as in all ages past, are trying to substi-
tute civic “morality,” respectability, social service, frater-
nalism, intellectualism, tradition, etc., for the obedience of
faith! How many, how very many, substitute lodge, cult,
ethical society, service club, etc., for t h e Church of t h e
living God! “Sprinkling is just as good as immersion.”
“I am willing to take my chances without immersion,”
“I am willing to take my chances without attending
church every Lord’s Day.” “I am a moral man-that’s
good enough for me!” But are these substitutes “good
enough” f o God?
~ God says that all such things are “vain”
-that is, utterly futile! “In vain do they worship me,
teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 1 5 :
8-9, Isa. 29:13, Col. 2:8, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:16, Jas.
1:26), All such “substituters” are walking in the “way
of Cain” (Jude 11) .
Note what the righteousness which is of faith has to say:
“the word is nigh thee . . . the word of faith, which we
preach” (Rom. 1 0 : 8 ) . Faith does what God commands,
and does it in the way He has commanded it to be done.
Faith without the works of faith is dead (Jas. 2:26).
God’s Covering of Giface
There is nothing t h a t tlie earth has to offer that can
provide atonement (covering) for the transgression of a
law of God, or t h a t can open up the way to God. Abel
recognized this truth and brought an offering of blood.

’ Blood is life (Lev. 17: 11) , and life-every kind of life-

is the gift of God (Gen. 2:7, Acts 17:25 ) , Cain refused
to witness to these truths of true religion and brought a n
offering of the ground, the ground which had already
417
 \

GENESIS
been placed under the Divine anathema (Gen. 3 :17). Cain
represents the man who tries to approach God on the basis
of something of merit within hmself-commonly defined
morality, good citizenship, fraternalism, social service, in-
tellectualism, etc. He represents the class described by the
Lord Jesus in Matt. 7: 15-23.
C.H.M. (NBG, 63, 64) : “An unpardoned sinner coming
into the presence of Jehovah, to present an ‘unbloody sacri-
fice,’ could only be regarded as guilty of the highest degree
of presumption. True, he had toiled to produce this offer-
ing: but what of that? Could a sinner’s toil remove the
curse and stain of sin? Could i t satisfy the claims of an
infinitely holy God? Could it furnish a proper ground of
acceptance for a sinner? Could it set aside the penalty
which was due to sin? Could i t rob death of its sting, or
the grave of its victory?-could it do any or all of these
things? Impossible! ‘Without shedding of blood there is
no remission.’ Cain’s ‘unbloody sacrifice,’ like every other
unbloody sacrifice, was not only worthless, but actually
abominable, in the divine estimation. It not only demon-
strated his entire ignorance of his own condition, but also
of the divine character. ‘God is not worshiped with men’s
hands, as though He needed anything’; and yet Cain
thought H e could be thus approached-and every mere
religionist thinks the same. Cain has had many millions of
followers, from age to age. Cain-worship has abounded
all over the world. It is the worship of every unconverted
soul, and is maintained by every false system of religion
under the sun.”
Dean (OBH, 13) : “Cain’s offering was only such as
Adam and Eve in the innocence of Eden might have
offered. It expressed no sense of sin, no prayer for pardon.
Moreover, Cain lacked the faith of his brother Abel (Heb.
11:4). His spirit, as contrasted with Abel’s, was one of
unbelief, self-righteousness, self-will. It was a case of
Pharisee and Publican a t the gate of Eden.’’
41 8
 THE BEGINNING OF T R U E RELIGION
We cannot expect to approach God on the basis of any-
thing within ourselves. The so-called “moralist” is the
modern Pharisee, who stands o f f , with a great show o f
piety, and prays, “Lord, 1 thank Thee I am not like other
men” (Luke 18 :11 ) , or, in modern terms, “I thank Thee,
Lord, that I am not Iilie all those poor hypocrites in t h e
church,” etc. The “moralist” puts all confidence in him-
self, rather than in Christ, His only hope of glory (Col.
1:27) ; and, in the end, his house will crumble because it
is built on sand (Matt. 7:24-27).
There is but one way back to God-that Way is Christ
(John 14:6, 1 Tim. 2: 5-6). There is but one remedy for
sin-that remedy is the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7, Heb.
9:14, 1 Pet. 1:18-19, Mark 14:24, Acts 20:28, Rom. 3 : 2 J ,
J : 9 ; Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22, 1 3 : 2 0 ; John 1:29).
There is but one method of presenting and applying this
remedy, namely, the preaching of the Gospel for the obedi-
ence of faith (1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 1:16, 10:12-17; John
14:1, 20:30-31; Acts 16:31, 2:38, 8:12; Matt. 28:18-20;
Luke 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 7:lO; Rom. 10:9-10; Rom. 6:l-11;
Acts 22:16, Gal. 3:27, etc.).
The Way of Cain
To summarize: What are the attitudes (motives) which
characterize those who walk in “the way of Cain” (Jude
1 1 ) . Obviously, the following:
1, Spiyitzral insensibility. As shown above, Cain’s out-
cries manifested his lack of any real knowledge of God,
hence of any appreciation of the Divine love and mercy
(cf. John 3:16; Rom. 8:38-39, 11:33-36; Eph. 3:14-19).
His reaction to God’s rejection of his offering was one of
sheer spiritual obtuseness (cf. 1 Cor. 2 : 1 4 ) , apparently
lacking even the slightest notion t h a t , if he should correct
his offering (as the LXX reads, “if thou offer correctly,
shalt thou not be accepted?”), he would receive God’s full
and free pardon. He simply did not know God in t h e
sense of having any appreciation of Him or of His love.
419
 GENESIS
Hence, not one of God’s questions which were calculated
t o induce reformation, ever “got through” to him. (Of
course, in our day, even we Christians find it difficult to
understand that God’s love is such that when H e forgives,
H e forgets: Psa. 103:lO-18, Jer. 31:31-34, Heb. 8:12.)
2. Unbelief. Faith does what God commands in the
way H e has commanded it to be done. Abel brought an
offering of faith in that it met the requirements of the
positive institution of sacrifice. It was a blood-offering,
as it had to be to foreshadow the blood-offering of God’s
Only Begotten, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world (John 17:24, Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet. 1:18-20, Rev. 13:8,
1 Cor. 5:7). This fact was, of course, an integral part of
God’s Eternal Purpose (Heb. 9:ll-28, 10:1-25). The Old
Testament saints may not have known, indeed could hardly
have known, the reason for this fundamental requirement
(Heb. 9:22)-but God knew. This was sufficient for
Abel, as it is for every man of faith. To Cain, however,
who walked by sight and not by faith ( 2 Cor. 5:7), the
details of God’s law of sacrifice meant little or nothing
(Heb. 11:4) ; hence in all justice there was only one re-
sponse that Yahweh could make, and that was to reject his
offering. “Blind unbelief is sure to erryy-of course, it errs
because it is blind.
3. Self -will, self-assertiveness.
Cain elevated his own
“righteousnessyy (“way of doing things”) above the right-
eousness of God (God’s way of doing things), the right-
eousness which is of faith (Rom. 10:6-10). O n his own
authority he came before Yahweh with his own kind of
offering. As suggested above, this obviously was the con-
uenieMt thing for him to do. H e was the first of that long
line of “substituters” (ersajz “Christians”) who choose
what they esteem to be “just as good” as that which God
has ordained. “Such was ‘the way of Cain,’ in which way
millions are, at this moment, rushing on. Such persons
are not, by any means, divested of the religious element in
42 0
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
their character. They would like to offer something to
God-to do something for Him. They deem it right to
present to Him the results of their own toil. They are
ignorant of themselves, ignorant of God; but with all this
tliere is the diligent effort to improve the world, to make
life agreeable in various ways, t o deck the scene with t h e
fairest colors. God’s remedy to cleuii~c is rejected, and
man’s effort to iiiiiirove is p u t in its place, This is ‘the
way of Cain,’ Jude 11” (C.H.M., N.B.G. 75, 7 6 ) . Again
(ibid., p, 77) : ‘There is abundance of religion, so called;
but alas! charity itself is compelled to harbor t h e apprehen-
sion t h a t very much of what passes for religion is but a
screw in the vast machine which has been constructed for
man’s convenience and man’s exaltation. Mail would not
be without religion: i t would not be respectable; and tliere-
fore he is content to devote one-seventh of his time to
religion, or, as he thinlis and professes, to his eternal inter-
ests, and then he has six-sevenths to devote to liis temporal
interests; but whether he works for time or eternity, i t is
for himself, in reality, Such is ‘the way of Cain.’ Let my
reader ponder it well. Let him see where this way begins,
whither i t tends, and where it terminates.”
4. Prof mity (worldliness, secularism, irreligion) . Cain,
like Esau, was profane (Heb. 12:16); t h a t is to say, he
lived his life “outside the temple”: h e not only lived in the
world, he was also of the world. It seems, moreover, t h a t
he bequeathed this worldliness, this secularism, this restless-
ness, to liis posterity (cf. Exo. 20: 5-6). N o t the slightest
semblance of humility is to be found in anything he said
or did, or in anything t h a t is reported about t h e particular
line which he sired. Again C.H.M. (ibid., pp. 74, 77) :
“It is well to see t h a t Cain’s act of murder was the true
consequence-the proper fruit-of his false worship. His
foundation was bad and the superstructure erected thereon
was also bad. Nor did lie stop a t the act of murder; but
having heard the judgment of God thereon, despairing of
42 1
 GENESIS
forgiveness through ignorance of God, he went forth from
His blessed presence and built a city, and had in his family
the cultivators of the useful and ornamental sciences-
.
agriculturists, musicians, and workers in metals. . . How
different the way of the man of faith! Abel felt and
owned the curse; he saw the stain of sin, and, in the holy
energy of faith, offered that which met it, and met it
thoroughly-met it divinely. He sought and found a
refuge in God Himself; and instead of building a city on
the earth, he found but a grave in its bosom.”
“The way of Cain” is indeed the broad way over which
the multitudes travel, not to eternal fellowship with God,
but to Godless, Christless eternity.
Abel mid Christ: Airdogies
The Scriptures do not expressly state that Abel was in-
tended to be typical of Christ: nevertheless, the analogies
are striking, as follows:
1. 111 the siinilnrity of their occzipatioiis. Abel chose the
occupation of a shepherd. Christ is the Good Shepherd
(John 10:16, Heb. 13:20, I Pet. 5:4) of human souls.
2. I n the sintilavity of their offerings. Abel brought the
best of his flock, and the f a t thereof, to the Lord. This
was an offering of blood and f a t , the richest offering that
could be made under the Old Testament plan of worship.
So our Christ offered Himself freely for the sin of the
world (John 1:29; Heb. 12:2, 9 : 1 4 ; Eph. 5:1; Matt. 20:
28; 1 Tim. 2 : 5 - 6 ) . The blood of Abel’s offering prefig-
ured the blood of Christ which was shed for the remission
of sins (Heb. 9:29, Matt. 26:28, Eph. 5 : 2 5 ) . The f a t of
Abel’s offering prefigured the inherent excellency of
Christ’s body (a consequence of His begetting by the Holy
Spirit, Luke 1 : 3 j , Acts 2:24) which was offered up on
the Cross for the sin of mankind (John 1:29, 1 Cor. 11:24,
1 Pet. 2:24; Heb. 10:5, 10, 2 0 ) . All this adds up to the
fact t h a t our Lord’s vicarious sacrifice of Himself was the
422
 TIlE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
richest (because the costhst) offering t h a t Heaven could
provide for the redemption of fallen man (Joh~i 3:16,
Rom, 3 : 2 4 ) ,
3 , I n the siniilaritpi of their deaths. Abel was murdered
by his ow11 brother. The Lord’s Anointed was put to
death a t tlie importunities of His own people, and espe-
cially of their ecclesiastical leaders. Cain exclaimed, “Am
I m y brother’s keeper?” Yahweh replied : “The voice o f
thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.”
When t h e Jewish leaders, supported by tlie mob which they
had assembled to enforce their demands, besought Pilate to
turn Jesus over to them that He might be p u t to death,
their raucous cry was, “His blood be on us, and on our
children” (Matt. 2 7 : 2 5 ) . By their wanton act, tlie ground
has been stained by a blood “ t h a t speaketh better than that
of Abel” (Heb. 1 2 : 2 4 ) . God took them a t their word,
as all subsequent history shows. In A.D. 70, t h e Roman
armies entered Jerusalem, after a horrible two years’ siege,
sacked tlie city, destroyed the Temple, aiid carried the
Jews into captivity,
4. 117 thr sinrilavity of the jeiial sarirtioris which O L J C Y -
took t h ~ i rrr~r~rdcrer..~.Cain was branded and sent out into
the land of “wandering”; he became an outcast and a
vagabond, aiid his restlessness was transmitted to his pos-
terity. From the day of Messiah’s Crucifixion, the Jewish
nation has never had a flag it could call its own: even
today, despitc the establishment of the state of Israeli, the
Jewish people remain scattered among all nations, aiid their
Zionistic state faces a precarious future. (Cf. Matt. 8:11-
12, 21:42-44, 23:29-39, 24:1-2; Mark 12:10-11, 1 3 ~ 1 - 2 ;
Luke 11 345-52, 13:34-3j, 19:41-44, 20:9-18, 21:20-24,
23:27-31; cf. also Deut. 28:37; Mark 11:12-14; Acts 3 :
13-15, 7:51-53.) The story is told of Frederick “the
Great” of Prussia, who was inclined toward skepticism,
once asked one of the niinisters of his realm: “Reverend
42 3
 GENESIS
Sir, what is the most convincing proof you can give me of
the divinity of Christ and the divine inspiration of the
Scriptures?” The clergyman hesitated not a moment.
“Sire,” said he, “the most convincing proof of the divinity
of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture that I, or any
other person, could give you, is the history of the Jewish
people.” But, let us not overlook the fact that the blood
of Christ is upon the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Accord-
ing t o tradition, Pilate, who presumed to cleanse himself
of this blood by ceremonially washing his hands in front
of the mob (Matt. 27:24-26), later died a suicide in Gaul.
Moreover, the death of Christ signaled also the setting in
of the dry rot which culminated in the downfall of the
Roman Empire itself. The simple fact is that our sins,
your sins and mine, crucified the Lord of glory. He bore
them all upon His body on the Tree! We have all, Jews
and Gentiles alike, been concluded under sin that we might
all return to God in the same way and on the same terms
(Rom. 3:23, Eph. 3 : l l - 2 2 ) .
C.H.M. (NBG,77, 78): “The earth, which on its sur-
face displayed the genius and energy of Cain and his
family, was stained underneath with the blood of a righ-
teous man. Let the man of the world remember this; let
the man of God remember it; let the worldly-minded
Christian remember it. The earth which we tread upon
is stained by the blood of the Son of God. The very blood
which justifies the Church condemns the world. The dark
shadow of the cross of Jesus may be seen by the eye of
faith, looming over all the glitter and glare of this evanes-
cent world. ‘The fashion of this world passeth away.’
It will soon all be over, so far as the present scene is con-
cerned. ‘The way of Cain’ will be followed by ‘the error
of Balaam,’ in its consummated form; and then will come
‘the gainsaying of Core’; and what then? ‘The pit’ will
open its mouth t o receive the wicked, and close it again
to shut them u p in ‘blackness of darkness forever.’ (Jude
424
 T H E BEGINNING OF T R U E RELIGION
11-13).” (Cf, Num., clis, 22, 23, 24; esp. Nuin, 24:3-9
with Num, 31:8, 31:1$ f f , 2 Pet. 2:15, Rev. 2:14; Num,,
ch. 16, 26:9-10, 2 7 : l - $ , with Jude 11,)
:t :* >: :t :t
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART SEVENTEEN
1. State the pagan etymology of the word “religion” as
given by Cicero.
2 , Considered subjectively, what generally is the word
“religion” used to signify?
3 , Name some of the practices which are cominoiily asso-
ciated with the term.
4. State John Dewey’s definition of t h e term.
F. What significance has the object of religious devotion
to t h e theory and practice in any particular system?
6. Name those matters which true religion is not.
7, What are the basic premises of true religion?
8. What is the essence of true religion?
9 . What does the term signify in Biblical religion?
10. Explain what is meant by t h e phrase, t h e Remedial
System.
11, What does t h e Remedial System include?
12. What is the mainspring of true religion on the Divine
side? What is it on the human side?
13. What does God’s grace include?
14. What are the various Inaiiifestatiolis of faith which
characterize t h e Spiritual Life?
I F . State the foriiziila of true religion.
16. What does the word “Dispensation” signify? Name
the Dispensations of true religion, and state t h e extent
of each.
17. What kind of change marked changes in Dispensations?
42 5
 GENESIS
18. In what Genesis narrative do we find the account of
the beginning of true religion?
19. State A. Campbell’s explanation of the beginning of
true religion,
20. In what interior condition of man did the necessity
for true religion arise?
21. By what specific measures did God meet this human
need?
22. Was religion provided for man before or after the Fall?
23. What are the elements of true religion?
24. What was the altar in the Patriarchal Dispensation?
In the Jewish Dispensation? What is it in our Dispen-
sation?
25. What was the type of priesthood in the Patriarchal. and
Jewish Dispensations respectively? What is it in our
Dispensation?
26. What type of sacrifice was characteristic of the Old
Testament Dispensations?
27. What did these offerings point forward to (typify)?
28. State the approximate dates of the Neolithic, Chalco-
lithic, and Bronze Ages. When did the Iron Age
begin?
29. M h o were the first sons of Adam and Eve? What
different occupations did they choose?
30. Give the details of the first account of sacrifice.
3 1. In this connection, explain the probable significance
of Gen. 3:21.
32. Whose offering was rejected, and whose accepted, by
Yahweh?
3 3 . What is the prevailing naturalistic explanation of God’s
acceptance of the one offering and His rejection of the
other?
34. What is the Biblical explanation?
42 6
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
35. Show how these examples illustrate a basic principle of
Biblical interpretation.
3 6. What is meant by “the righteousness which is of faith”?
3 7. What is the significance of the blood in the institution
of sacrifice?
3 8 . Who is our Passover? Cite the Scripture text which
states this fact explicitly.
39. State the proofs of the Divine origin of sacrifice,
40. Distinguish between moral law and positive law.
41, What was the twofold basic design of t h e institution
of sacrifice?
42. Why have men in all ages tended to ignore, neglect,
modify, even scoff a t God’s positive ordinances?
43 * What is the Scriptural significance of a positive divine
ordinance?
44. What is the testimonial significance of the Christian
ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
45, Explain what is meant by sacrifice as a propitiation, as
a reconciliation, as an expiation, and as a redemption.
46. What does t h e word “atonement” mean? State clearly
the Biblical doctrine of t h e Atonement.
47. What were the chief characteristics of pagan sacrifices?
48. Why do we say t h a t pagan sacrifices were probably
corruptions of the original law of sacrifice as revealed
in Scripture?
49 * Name some of the remnants of the magical and mysti-
cal pagan cults of sacrifice t h a t were carried over into
institutionalized Christianity.
5 0. Who committed t h e first murder, and why?
51. How did God proceed in dealing with the murderer?
What did He first try to do?
52. What was Cain’s reaction?
53. In what sense did Cain’s offering lack efficacy?
427
 GENESIS
54. What did Cain try t o do after killing Abel?
5 5 . What did he say when God bluntly charged him with
the crime?
56. What was his attitude?
77. In what sense, would you say, is every man his broth-
er’s keeper?
58. What was the “blood feud” or “blood revenge”?
59. In what way did man finally, by law, resolve this
problem of blood revenge?
60. Distinguish between vengeame and vindication.
61. Trace the development of sinful feelings into actual
crime, as exemplified in “the way of Cain.”
62. What was the first curse ever pronounced on a human
being?
6 3 . What is indicated in Cain’s cry, “My punishment is
greater than I can bear”?
64. In what way or ways did the ground serve as the in-
strument of punishment to Cain and his posterity?
61i. What is the answer to the question, Where did Cain
get his wife?
66. Why are Cain, Abel, and Seth the only three children
of Adam and Eve mentioned in Scripture?
67. What relation has this fact t o the grand design of the
Bible as a whole?
68. What was the “mark of Cain”?
69. What purpose was served by this “mark”? Was it a
mark of punishment or a mark of Divine grace? Ex-
plain your answer.
70. What special obligations does the Christian have to-
ward his brothers in the flesh?
71. What special obligations does the Christian have espe-
cially toward those of the household of the faith?
42 8
 THE BEGINNING OF TRUE RELIGION
72, What proofs do we have from Cain’s outcries t h a t he
had no real understanding of God?
73, How does Cain’s cry of desperation point to the cry
of lost souls a t the Judgment?
74, What are the marks of genuine faith? How are these
related to the Christian ordinances, especially t h a t of
Christian baptism?
75, Explain what is meant by the phrase, “God’s covering
of grace.”
76. What are t h e devices to which men resort as substitutes
for this Divine “covering”?
77. What folly is involved in man’s presumption that civic
morality, fraternalism, respectability, intellectualism,
tradition, and the like, will have t h e efficacy to save
him from sin?
78. What is the folly of trying to substitute something
“just as good” for implicit obedience to God’s laws?
79. How does genuine faith respond to the Divine ordi-
nances?
80. What are the chief characteristics of those who walk
in “the way of Cain”?
81. Explain Jude 11.
82. T h a t does the word “profanity” especially imply i n
Scripture?
83, What are the analogies between the lives of Abel and
Christ?
84, In what sense did the punishment which descended on
Cain point forward to t h a t which descended on the
Jews and Gentiles who crucified Christ?
85, What is the blood “ t h a t spealretli better than t h a t of
Abel”?
86. In what sense does this blood cry out against all inan-
kind? What, then, is man’s only remedy?
4.29
4:16-24 PART EIGHTEEN
THE BEGINNINGS OF H U M A N CULTURE
(Gen. 4: 16-24)
1. The Patriarchal A g e
The story of Cain and Abel introduces the Patriarchal
form of government and worship. Family government is
the oldest form of social organization known to history;
family worship is the oldest form of worship described in
the Bible. The patriarch was the head of his family; as
such, he acted as prophet, priest and king. As jwophet,
he communicated the will of God, which he received by
direct revelation, to his household; as priest, he offered
sacrifice and acted as mediator between Yahweh and his
frimily; rind as ktirg, his will was absolute law. The institu-
tion of worship during this Dispensation was the altar.
This may have been a mound of earth, or a huge stone, or
several stones placed one on top of the other, or a heap of
unhewn stones and native earth (Exo. 20:24-26, Deut. 27:
5 - 6 ) . The patriarchs were nomadic, of course, and the
altar was usually a heap of unhewn stones and native earth
thrown together wherever the patriarch pitched his tents
and on which he offered sacrifices to Jehovah. The first
period of the Patriarchal Dispensation was the Antediluvian
Period in the story of which, in the Biblical account, we
have the history of the Messianic Genealogy from Adam to
Noah.
2 . The Liirr o j Cairr
~ w e n t out f roiiz the fireseiice of Jeho-
“ 1 6 A I ICaiii
v d , d u d diurlt ill the laiid of Nod, O I I the east of
Eden. 17 Aird Caiii k i i e w his w i f e ; arid she conceived,
atid bar? Enoch: i t r i d he biiilded a city, and called the
traiize o f the city, a f t e r the irarrze of his son, Enoch.
1 8 Aud uiito Eiioch was borrr lrad: arid Irnd beyat
Mehiijacl; niid Mrhiijncl begat Methiishael; niid Me-
thrishael begat Lanzech. 19 Atid Larizech took iiiito
hiin fivo iuivcs: the iraiize of the oiie w a s Adah, arid
43 0
THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMAN CULTURE 4;16-24
the i i a i i i e of the other Zillah. 20 Aiid A d a h bare Jabal:
b e was the fatbeip of siich as dwell in teiits aiid have
cattle. 21 A i i d his brother’s i i a i i i e was Jubal: he w a s
the fathelp of all si/cI! as haiidle the harp aiid Pike.
22 Aiid Zillah, she also b a w Tubal-cain, the forger of
every cirttiiig iiistriiiiieiit of h a s s aiid iyoii: aiid the
sister of Tubal-caiii was Naamah. 23 Aiid Laiiiech said
1171t0 his wives:
A d a b aird Zillab, hear iiiy voice;
Ye wives of Laiiiech, hearken m t o my sleech:
FOY I have slaiii a i i i a i i f o woiiiidiiig
~ iiie,
Aiid a 310iiiig iiiaii f o r bruising i v e :
24 If Cairi shall be aveiiged sevenfold,
Twdy Laiiiech seveiity aiid scveii fold.”
( 1 ) V. 16. In view of t h e repeated affirmations in
Scripture of God’s omnipresence (everywhereness : cf. Psa.
139:7-10, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 23:23-24, Amos 9:2-3, Acts 17:
2 7 - 2 8 ) , how can it be said that any human being went
“out from” His presence? (Cf. Gen. 3:8, l l : J , 18:20-21;
1 IG. 19:ll-12, Jonah 1:3,) Obviously, the “presence of
Jehovah” (Yahweh) in these latter passages had reference
either (a) to special and visible manifestatioiis of Deity a t
the times indicated, or ( b ) to the place of those manifes-
tations (probably a t the entrance of the Garden where the
Cherubim were stationed), or (c) to both. All such pas-
sages are anthropomorphic in character. It will be noted
that Cain became a dweller “in t h e land of Nod,” t h a t is,
the land of Wandering, “on the east of Eden.” “The name
of this unidentified land recalls the description of Cain as
a ‘wanderer,’ iiad, in the land of Nod” (JB, 19, n.). It
may carry a connotation of the inan’s obvious restlessness :
was the Biblical Cain a counterpart of t h e Greek Prome-
theus? Does this mean, as Josephus conjectures, t h a t Cain
was not in any sense reformed by his punishment, “but
waxed worse and worse, giving himself to rapine, robbery,
oppression, deceit” (Whitelaw, PCG, 8 2 ) ?
43 1
4:16-24 GENESIS
(2) V. 17. ( a ) Cuiii’s w i f e . “Starting from a single
pair in Eden, in the course of seven generations the human
family must have attained to very considerable dimensions.
A t the birth of Seth, Adam was 130 years old, and in all
probability had other sons and daughters besides Cain and
his wife. If Lamech, the seventh from Adam in the line
of Cain, was contemporaneous with Enoch, the seventh
from Adam in the line of Seth, a t least 600 years had
passed away since the race began to multiply; and if Abra-
ham’s stock in less than 400 years amounted t o 600,000
[men alone, “a mixed multitude,” Exo: 12:37-421, Cain’s
posterity in the like time might arise to the like multitude.
If t o these the descendants of Seth be added, it will appear
that the earth’s population in the time of Lamech was con-
siderably over 1,000,000 inhabitants” (PCG, 90) . Murphy
(MG, 1 5 8 ) : “The wife of Cain was of necessity his sister,
though this was forbidden in after times, for wise and holy
reasons, when the necessity no longer existed.” ( b ) The
f i r s t city. Cain built the city and named it EIzoch after
the name of his son. A city in that day was a stronghold,
a fort, built on high ground, and walled.
( 3 ) V. 18. A series of three nondescript characters,
progenitors of three successive generations: Irad (“towns-
man,” “wild ass”?), Mehujael (“smitten by God”), Me-
thushael (“strong man of God”?) . “And Methushael
begat Lamech” (“strong youth”) , In this genealogy La-
mech stands out in bold relief as a man of authority,
aggressiveness, even violence.
(4) Luinech’s Family, vv. 19-24. ( a ) V. 19. The first
record and evidently the first instance of polygamy. (b)
Note the names of the two wives: Adah (“the adorned,’’
fC
ornament,’’ “beauty”) , and Zillah (“shadow,” “tinkling,”
“musical player”), These seem to indicate the charms
which attracted Lamech and caused him to turn marriage
from a moral into a sensual institution. (c) Vv. 20, 21-
Adah’s sons were named Jabal (yabul, “to lead” flocks),
432
THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMAN CULTURE 4:lG-24
and Jubal (yobcl, “trumpet”). ( d ) V, 2~--Zillah’s son
was Tubal-cain (“hammer blow of the smith”) . “Tubal
(name of a northern race, Gem lo:?., famous for its
deposits of metal). Cain means ‘smith’ in other Semitic
languages” (JB, G G n . ) . Murphy (MG, 1 J9) : “The three
names Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal are formed from a root
signifying to flow, ~ i i i i , go f o ~ f h perhaps
, blow, from
which comes the blast or trumpet-note of joy or release,
Accordingly, all sorts of going forth, t h a t were suitable to
the life of a nomad, seem to have distinguished this family.’’
We have here an account of the beginnings of stockbreed-
ing, of the invention and use of musical instruments, and
of various forms of metal-worlring. Some say t h a t we
have described here “the three classes of nomads : shepherds,
traveling musicians, and tinkers” (JB, G G , n.) . ( e ) Note
the name of Tubal-cain’s sister, Naamah, meaning “lovely.”
Does not this indicate t h a t the Cainites selected their wives
for their sensual (voluptuous) forms and lovely faces
rather than for their pious hearts? Thus we find in com-
paring the name of Tubal-cain’s sister (“the lovely”) with
that of Adam’s wife ( “ t h e living”) a growing symptom
of the degeneracy which was gradually coming upon man,
and especially on-and through-the line of Cain.
( 5 ) The Soiig of Laiizech (vv, 2 3 - 2 4 ) . “This ferocious
song, composed in honour of a desert paladin named La-
mech, is recorded here as evidence of the increasing ferocity
of Cain’s descendants” (JB, 21, n.), Whitelaw (PCG,
89) : “111protestations and .assurances in which t h e mind
of the speaker views the action as already accomplished,
.
being as good as done . . then t h e father of Tubal-cain
is depicted as exulting in the weapons which his son’s
genius had invented, and with boastful arrogance threaten-
ing death to the first man t h a t should injure him, im-
piously asserting t h a t by means of these same weapons he
would exact upon his adversary a vengeance ten times
greater than that which had been threatened against the
43 3
 4:16-24 GENESIS
murderer of Cain. Considering the character of the
speaker and the spirit of the times, it is probable that this
is the correct interpretation.” “Lamech’s song in Gen. 4:
23f. is frequently thought t o be a ‘sword-lay’ glorifying
the weapons of war invented by his son. H e boasts to his
wives that he has killed men, and, because of his superior
strength due to his weapons, he has no need of God’s pro-
tection, but is well able to defend himself. H e appears as
‘a cruel man, destitute of all humanity’ (Calvin)” (NBD,
706). Murphy (MG, 159, 160) : “In this fragment of an
ancient song, we have Lamek, under the strong excitement
of having slain a man in self-defence, reciting t o his wives
the deed, and at the same time comforting them and him-
self with the assurance that if Cain the murderer would
be avenged sevenfold, he the manslayer in self-defence
would be avenged seventy and seven fold. This short ode
has all the characteristics of the most perfect Hebrew
poetry. Every pair of lines is a specimen of the Hebrew
parallelism or rhythm of sentiment and style. They all
belong to the synthetic, synonymous, or cognate parallel,
the second member reiterating with emphasis the first.
Here we observe that Lamek was a poet; one of his wives
was possibly a songstress, and the other had a taste for
ornament. One daughter was the lovely, and three sons
were the inventors of most of the arts which sustain and
embellish life. This completes the picture of this remark-
able family,” Remarkable, yes, but unfortunately proud,
self -assertive, and irreligious, Cornfeld ( AtD, 2 3, 24) :
“The Song of Lamech or in fact a fragment of the original,
is one of the oldest examples of epic style in the Old Testa-
ment. Other very ancient epic fragments, artistically
moulded, will be found elsewhere and may easily be dis-
tinguished by their style and spirit as different from the
literary material in which they are embedded.” Lange
(CDHCG, 261): “The song of Lamech is the first decid-
edly poetic form in the Scriptures, more distinct than ch.
43 4
THE BEGINNINGS OF I-ILJMAN CULTURE 4:16-24
1:27 and ch. 2:23, as is shown by t h e marked parallelism
of the members. It is the consecration of poetry to the
glorification of a Titanic insolence, and, sung as i t was in
the ears of both his wives, stands as a proof that lust and
murder are near akin to each other. Rightly may we sup-
pose , . . t h a t the invention of his son, Tubal Cain, t h a t is,
the invention of weapons, made him so excessively haughty,
whilst the invention of his son Jubal put him in a position
to sing to his wives his song of hate and vengeance. This
indicates, a t the same time, a n immeasurable pride in his
talented sons. He promises himself the taking of blood-
vengeance, vastly enhanced in degree, but shows, a t t h e
same time, by the citation of the case of his ancestor Cain,
t h a t the dark history of t h a t bad man had become trans-
formed into a proud remembrance for his race.” (Could
the Battle of the Gods and Giants (Titans) in Greek
tradition rightly be regarded as an echo of this Song of
Lamech? See Plato’s Sophist.)
3. The Degeneracy of the Caiiiites
The brief account of Cain’s posterity which is given us
in this section of t h e fourth chapter of Genesis (vv. 16-
24) shows clearly the kind of people they were. It is evi-
dent t h a t they inherited the corrupt, restless character of
their common ancestor. Thus, in a few striking statements
the inspired writer pictures the retrogression of the human
race into wickedness and violence, beginning with t h e
Cainites, and t h e subsequent intermingling of the two lines
of Cain and Seth. It was this intermingling, moreover,
that resulted in the universal wickedness which precipitated
Divine Judgment in the form of the Flood. The degener-
acy of the Cainites is evidenced: (1) B y their iiames.
Enoch (“the initiated and his city”) , Irad, Mehujael, and
Lamech, are all names t h a t suggest this-worldliness: even
Methushael is a name which indicates this tendency, al-
though there is some confusion as to what this name really
43 J
4:16-24 GENESIS
did mean. Adah, Zillah, and Naamah, are names that
indicate sensual attraction rather than true nobility of
womanhood. ( 2 ) B y their works. The building of a city
was unnecessary and productive of sin. Urbanization has
always multiplied sin, crime, disease, insanity, intoxication,
prostitution, strife, violence, indeed every kind of wicked-
ness (cf. Gen. 1:28, 11:4). There is no evidence that God
ever looks with favor on the concentration of population.
“And though it certainly cannot be sinful to handle a harp,
or to cultivate poetry, yet when we put all of these things
together-beautiful wives, iron weapons, musical instru-
ments, warlike ballads, if not bacchanalian songs-it is not
difficult to perceive a deepening devotion to the things of
life which invariably proclaims a departure from the things
of God.” Of course this does not mean necessarily that the
facets of human culture which take in what we ordinarily
speak of as the useful arts and the fine arts are evil in
themselves: they become evil, however, when they are pros-
tituted to profane, licentious and violent ends, when they
become the means used by man to glorify, even to deify,
himself and his kind. I-Iistory certainly testifies that so
many persons who devote their lives to the production of
the fine arts especially (music, poetry and other forms of
literature, painting, sculpture, etc.) are notoriously lacking
in religious (spiritual) sensitivity or practice. W h y is this
so? ( 3 ) B y theiT imnzoral lives. We see, in the profane
careers of the Cainites a growing disregard for divine
things, and this profanity seems to gather momentum with
each succeeding generation. Lamech prostituted the insti-
tution of marriage into a sensual and polygamous relation-
ship. We see the growth of a turbulent and lawless spirit,
in the warlike weapons of Tubal-cain’s invention and in
the boastful ballad which Lamech “sang” to his wives.
These two things-licentiousness tnd lawlessness-are al-
ways indicative of moral and spiritual degeneracy.
43 6
TIlE BEGINNINGS OF IlUMAN CULTURE 4:16-24
4. The Antiqw’ty of Human C w l f r ~ e
In sociological jargon, culture is usually defined as t h e
sum total of “behavior patterns” handed down from gen-
eration to generation. It includes the various facets of
what are commonly called t h e fiiie arfs and the wsefwl arts.
In the section of chapter 4 now before us we find brief
references to t h e progenitors of certain cultural pursuits,
namely, those of herdsmen, musicians, and smiths (metal-
workers) . Some interesting comments on this development
are to be found in works by modern writers. For example,
Skinner writes (ICCG, 123) : “The three sons of Lamech
represent not the highest stages of social evolution, but
three picturesque modes of life, which strike t h e peasant
as interesting and ornamental, but by no means essential to
the framework of society,’’ But-by what authority do
we assume that the author of this account was writing for
peasants in particular? Simpson (IB, 524) : “It may be
noted here t h a t the implication of vss. 20-22a is t h a t Jabal,
Jubal, and Tubal (-cain) were the fathers of the nomads,
musicians, and metalworkers existing at the time of writ-
ing, Le., that the author of this account of the origins of
civilization knew nothing of the Flood.” This is a purely
arbitrary assumption, and is completely out of harmony
with the obvious design of the text which surely is to point
u p the growing worldliness of t h e Cainites and so to lead
to an explanation of the universal wickedness which
brought Divine judgment on the antediluvian world.
Again, it has been supposed by t h e analytical critics t h a t
these cultural developments as depicted in Gen. 4: 16-24,
not the least of which by any means was t h e building of a
city, occurred much later than in antediluvian times, and
hence that the narrative presents a n anachronism which
can be resolved only by assuming t h a t it was composed a t a
much later date, probably after the beginning of the Iron
Age about 1500 B.C. T o this argument we reply t h a t the
inspired writer-whom we believe to have been Moses,
437
4:16-24 GENESIS
although he might well have been making use of ancient
traditions-is not picturing contemporary events, that is,
events occurring in his own lifetime, but is simply refer-
ring back to the particular age in which these cultural
developments oc‘curred, and to those individuals who origi-
nated the phases of culture which are specifically men-
tioned. Moreover, the fundamental purpose of the writer
is obvious (as stated above), namely, to chorzicle t h e
g r o t u i ~ gdegerierncy of the Cairzites, their sheer auorldliizess
nr?d irveligiozisrzess, rather than to emphasize the historical
or sociological content of what he is putting in the record.
It is not surprising, therefore, that he makes no attempt
t o trace the Line of Cain beyond seven generations. Since
he is interested only in accounting for the universal wick-
edness which later overtook the human race, in the inter-
mingling of the more pious Sethites with the worldly Cain-
ites, his purpose is accomplished fully in his description of
the profane character of Lamech and his wives and off-
spring.
The notion of anachronism in these verses before us has
been thoroughly debunked by archaeology. It is clearly
understood in our day, as proved by archaeological discov-
eries, that many aspects of human culture are very ancient.
In the Neolithic Age, which extended roughly from about
8000 B.C. to 5600 B.C., plant and animal domestication
was fully developed and even pottery began to appear
about the latter date. (Indeed we must take account even
of the polychrome paintings on the cave walls, of the
hand-carved artifacts (such as batons especially, probably
used for magical purposes), many specimens of which have
been brought to light by archaeological excavations, and
which must have been in existence about the beginning of
the Neolithic Period.) The Chalcolithic Age (c. J O O O -
3000 B.C.) was marked by many cultural advances. For
example, Albright tells us (FSAC, 173, 174) that the dec-
orative art of the Chalcolithic Age is “very instructive’’ as
43 8
 THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMAN CULTURE 4:16-24
compared with t h a t which preceded it. He writes: “In
the chalcolithic cultures of Halaf, Susa, and Ghassul after
4000 B.C. we find a n extraordinary development of the
imaginative-aesthetic powers of man, resulting in astonish-
ingly complex geometrical figures of dragons which carry
us into the realm of phantasmagoria. It is very doubtful
whether man’s artistic capabilities are actually any higher
today than they were in late prehistoric times, though t h e
number of motifs, techniques, and media available to him
now is, of course, immeasurably greater.’’ Nelson Glueclr
(RD, 42-50) tells us that advanced copper industry was
developed in some areas of Palestine as early as the begin-
ning of the Chalcolithic Age. “It is written t h a t the
cousins of the Kenites, called the Kennizites, lived in the
Valley of the Smiths (the Wadi Arabah), and, further-
more, that Tubal-cain, the latter part of whose name is
just a different English spelling for Kenite, was the first
forger of copper and iron instruments (1 Chronicles 4: 12-
14, Gen. 4:22), , . . I am inclined to think that there is a
link of hereditary and industrial union, which binds the
Kenite and Judaean miners and craftsmen of die Wadi
Arabah with their very distant Chalcolithic predecessors a t
Tell Abu Matar, even as its primitive copper crucibles,
unchanged in style throughout the centuries, may have
served as models for those in Solomon’s intricate smelter
a t Ezion-geber” (p. 45, cf. Num. 21 : 8 - 9 ) , Again (ibid.,
5 8 ) : “The Chalcolithic farming communities in the
Northern Negev belonged to an advanced agricultural civ-
ilization, which extended throughout the Fertile Crescent.”
Again (p. 4 8 ) : “Tell Abu Matar was not a mean village
lacking in comfort and culture. Among its residents were
farmers, shepherds, potters, weavers, smiths and other arti-
I
I sans of high attainments. They stored their grain in pits
~ made moistureproof with plaster linings. The furniture of
I their households and the tools of their trades were fashioned
out of flint, basalt, limestone, ivory and bone. Distinctive
439
 4: 16-24 GENESIS
pottery was shaped by hand with partial or occasional use
of the tournette, and fired so well in kilns that some of it
has survived the passage of six millenia. Men and women
adorned themselves with stone and ivory bracelets, copper
rings, pendants of mother of pearl and amulets sometimes
of striking beauty,” etc. He concludes: “In many respects,
the Chalcolithic civilization of Tell Abu Matar was indis-
tinguishable from that of sites of the same period elsewhere.
It obviously did not exist in a vacuum.” Remember that
these statements describe cultures that flourished at the
very beginning of the Chalcolithic Age, about 4000 B.C.,
and probably earlier. (“Chalcolithic” means literally
t C
copperstone.” Bronze (brass), which came in later, was
an alloy of copper and tin.) Finally, in this connection,
Cornfeld (AtD, 23) : “Whether the Cainite civilization
referred to in Genesis 4 originated in Anatolia, in Kurdi-
stan, or farther east of Eden, or how it spread, is uncertain.
The Biblical representation of the progress of the arts and
crafts is well borne out by archaeology. The potter’s
wheel, the use of donkeys, primitive wheeled vehicles,
bricks and cylinder seals are among man’s discoveries in
these earliest prehistoric sites.” There can be no doubt
that the phases of human culture described in Genesis 4:
16-24 flourished not too long after the very beginnings of
the history or’ hoiizo sapiens. Indeed archaeology has, in
recent years, confirmed the historicity of practically every
event recorded in Scripture.
:F x. :) >> :*
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART EIGHTEEN
1. With what events did the Patriarchal Dispensation
begin and end?
2. What was the earliest form of government? Of wor-
ship?
3 . What was the duty of the patriarch as prophet, as
priest, and as king?
440
 THE BEGINNINGS OF HUMAN CULTURE 4;16-24
4, What is the correlation between this threefold function
and t h e ineaning of the titles, Messiah, Christos, and
Christ?
5. Of what did the patriarch’s household consist?
6, What was the altar throughout the Patriarchal Dispen-
sation? Of what was it constructed?
7. What was the nature of the sacrifice offered in t h e
Patriarchal Dispensation?
8. What is the first period of the Patriarchal Dispensation
called, and why?
9. What genealogical line is given us in Genesis 4:16-24?
10. In what sense did Cain go “out from the presence of
Jehovah” ?
11. What is probably indicated by the phrase, “the land
of Nod”?
12. Summarize the suggestions offered in regard to Cain’s
wiie.
13, Who built the first city and what was it named?
14. What was the moral significance of this act?
lj. What evils usually result from concentration of popu-
1a tion?
16. What was God’s original injunction to man in ye the
occupancy of the earth? Instead of obeying this com-
mand, what did man do?
17. Is there any evidence in Scripture t h a t God 10011s with
favcr on concentration of population?
I
18, List the descendants in the Line of Cain terminating
with Lamech.
19. What is suggested by the meaning of t h e names given
these men?
20. Who is represented as introducing polygamy?
I 21. Who were Lamech’s wives, and what is the meaning of
their names?
441
4: 16-24 GENESIS
22. What facets of human culture were introduced by
Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain, respectively?
23. What was the name of Tubalcain’s sister and what did
i t mean?
24. What is meant by the Song of Lamech?
25. What: was the character of this song from the liferary
and from the moral points of view?
26. What does it reveal about the person who composed
and sang i t ?
27. O n what grounds can we say that Cain’s evil propen-
sities were handed down to his offspring?
2 8 . What were the phases of human culture originated by
the sons of Lamech?
29. What is meant by the term “culture,” and of what
does culture consist?
30. What are the evidences of the growing degeneracy of
the Cainites?
31. Show how this presentation of the development of
culture harmonizes with the actual cultural develop-
ments in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Ages.
32. What, obviously, was the author’s purpose in inserting
this brief account in the Scripture record of the ori-
gins of these facets of culture?
3 3 . Why, probabiy, did he stop tracing the Line of Cain
after seven generations?
34. What is the obvious relation of Gen. 4:16-24 to the
material that is presented in succeeding chapters?
3 5 . Explain what is meant by the Chalcolithic Age and
the Bronze Age. What is bronze (in Scripture, brass) ?

442
 PART NINETEEN: 4316-24
THE BEGINNINGS OF TIHE MESSIANIC LINE
(Gen. 4:25-5:32)
1. The Birth of Seth
“25 Aiid Adain Itnew his w i f e again; aiid she bare a
soil, aiid called his iiaiiie Seth: For, said sl9e, G o d hat19
appoiiited m e aiiotl9eif seed iiistead of A b e l ; for Caiii
slew him. 26 Aiid to Seth, t o him also there wus borii
a sou, aiid he called his iiaiiie Eiiosh. Theii begaii i i i e i i
t o call u p o i i the iiaiiie of Jekovak.”
2. The Two Geiiealogies
(1) The inspired author first traces the Line of Cain
through seven generations, and a t t h a t point he termi-
nates the genealogy of t h e Cainites. Why did he trace
the Line no further? Apparently because this was f a r
enough to accomplish his purpose, namely, the explanation
of the universal wickedness which spread over tlie whole
earth as a result of the intermingling of the pious Sethites
with the irreligious Cainites. By the time we conclude
reading his few terse statements about the Line of Cain,
especially those descriptive of Lamech aiid his offspring,
we are bound to see that Cain’s descendants were restless,
proud, lustful, inclined to violence, and generally prof ane.
Hence, in Gen. 4:25 the writer turns our attention to his
basic purpose in giving us these early genealogical tables,
t h a t of recording the beginnings of the Messianic Line.
We must not lose sight of t h e fact t h a t the funda-
mental design of the Holy Spirit in giving us t h e sacred
Scriptures is t h a t of providing the evidence to authenti-
cate t h e Messiahship of Jesus (cf. John 20:30-31, 16:13-
14; Acts 3:13-18, 10:39-43,26:22-23; 1 Pet. 1:lO-12).
We sometimes wonder why all the genealogical tables
scattered throughout the Bible, especially those in Genesis,
in Chronicles, and in Matthew and Luke. They are there
for a specific purpose: to give us t h e history of the
44.3
 4:25, 26 GENESIS
Messianic Line, the Line of Promise, the Line destined to
culminate, and to be fulfilled, in the Seed of the Woman
(Gen. 3:15). The method of the author of Genesis is
followed by practically all Bible writers, namely, that of
taking u p first the relevant colluteral matter and then
returning t o the r r t h thewze. He first disposes of the
Line of Cain, for the purposes as stated above, and then
traces the line of Seth (“substitute” for Abel) through
whom the Messianic Line is carried forward, concluding
with Noah, “a preachLr of righteousness’’ ( 2 Pet. 2 : 5 .
Murphy [MG, 1611) : “This passage completes the account
of Adam’s family. Henceforth we generally meet with
two parallel lines of narrative, as the human family is di-
vided into two great branches, with opposing interests and
tendencies. The main line refers to the remnant of the race
that are on terms of open reconciliation with God; while a
collateral line notes as far as necessary those who have de-
parted from the knowledge and love of the true God.”
Green (UBG, 49) : “The whole arrangement bears evidence
of adaptation and careful thought, and is suggestive of one
author, not the combination of separate compositions pre-
pared with no reference to each other. A further indica-
tion of the same sort, implying the original unity of these
chapters, is their correspondence with the general plan of
Genesis in respect to genealogies. Uniformly the divergent
lines are first traced before proceeding with the principal
line of descent leading to the chosen people. In ch. 10 the
various nations of mankind sprung from the three sons
of Noah; then (11:lO sqq.) the line from Shem to
Abram. Nahor’s descendants (22:20 sqq.) , those of
Keturah (2531 sqq.), and of Ishmael (vs. 1 3 sqq.), before
those of Isaac (vs. 19 sqq.). Those of Esau (36:l sqq.)
before those of Jacob (37:2 sqq.). In like manner the
degenerate and God-forsaken race of Cain is traced (iv.
17 sqq.) before proceeding with that of Seth (ch. J ) , ”
444
 BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE 4:2$, 26
( 2 ) On account of the similarities of certain iiames in
both genealogical tables, some of t h e critics have “supposed
a mingling of both genealogies, or one common primitive
legend in two forms.” Laiige (CDHCG, 261) : “Keil
contends against this by laying emphasis on the difference
of the names t h a t appear to be similar, and t h e different
position of those that are alike. For the sake of compari-
son we let the line of Seth immediately follow: 1. Adam
(earth-man) , 2. Seth (compensation or the established) .
3 , Enoch (weak m a n ) . 4. Caiiiaii (profit, a mere like-
sounding of Cain). 5 , Mahalalel (praise of God [only a n
.
echo of Mahujael] ) 6. Jared, descending, the descender
(only a resemblance in sound to Irad), 7. Enoch, or
Henoch, t h e consecrated. Here tlie devoted, or C O I I S P -
crated, follows the dcsceiiding; in tlie Cainitish line he
follows Cain. The one was t h e occupier of a city in the
world, the other was translated to God; both consecrations,
or devotions, stand, therefore, in full contrast. 8. Methu-
selah. According to the usual interpretation: man of t h e
arrow, of the weapons of war. As he forms a chronologi-
cal parallel with the Caiiiitic Lamech, so may we regard
this name as indicating t h a t he introduced these newly
invented weapons of t h e Cainites into t h e line of Seth, in
order to be a defence against the hostile insolence of the
Cainites. I t consists with this interpretation, t h a t with
him there came into the line of Seth a tendency toward
the worldly, after which it goes down with it, and with
the age. Even the imposing upon his son the name
Lamech, the strong youth, may be regarded as a warlike
demonstration against the Caiiiitic Lamech. Therefore,
9. Lemech or Lamech. 10. Noah, t h e wsf, tlie quiefci~,or
iicaceiizalter. With Lamech who greeted in his son the
future pacificator, there appears to be indicated in the
I line of Seth, a direction, peaceful, yet troubled with toil
and strife. It was just such a n age, however, as might
have for its consequence t h e alliances and minglings with
44
 4:2J, 26 GENESIS
the Cainites that are now introduced, and which have so
often followed the exigencies of war. This Sethian Lamech,
however, forms a significant contrast with the Cainitic.
The one consoled himself with the newly invented weapons
of his son Tubal Cain, as his security against the fearful
blood-vengeance. The other comforts himself with the
hope that with his son there shall come a season of holy
rest from the labor and pains that are burdened with the
curse of God. In regard to both lines in common, the
following is to be remarked: 1. The names in the Cainitic
line are, for the most part, expressive of pride, those of
the Sethic, of humility. 2. The Cainitic line is carried
no farther than to the point of its open corruption in
polygamy, quarrelsomeness, and the consecration of art to
the service of sin. The Sethic line forms in its tenth
period the full running out of a temporal world-develop-
ment, in which Enoch, the seventh, properly appears a t the
highest point. 3 . Against the mention of the Cainitic
wives, their charms and their arts, appears in the Sethic
line only the mention of sons and daughters. It serves
for an introduction to the sixth chapter.”
( 3 ) Vu. 25-26. ( a ) Adam is now bequeathing his own
image to his offspring, not the image of God that he had
been originally by creation, but that image which has now
become marred by sin. Of course, we have no means of
knowing how greatly the descendants of Adam may have
multiplied by the time he attained the age of 130 years
( I : 3 ) . In view of the penalty pronounced on Eve, how-
ever, his progeny must have been numerous (note 3 :16-
cc
unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain
and thy conception”). The Bible is not concerned with
any of these numerous sons and daughters ( 5 :4), but only
with the three who figure in the Messianic Development,
namely, Cain, Abel and Seth. ( b ) Said Eve, “God hath
appointed me another seed instead of Abel,” hence the
name Seth (“the appointed,” “substitute,” “compensa-
446
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE 4 : 2 ~ 26
,
tion”) I Murphy (MG, 162) : "Par God h a t h given m e
another seed instead of Habel, He is to be instead of
Habel, and God-fearing lilce I-Iabel. Far above this con-
sideration, God h a t h given him. This son is from God,
She regards him as God’s son. She receives t h i s gift from
God, and in faith expects him to be the seed of God, t h e
parent of a godly race. Her faith was not disappointed,
His descendants earn tlie name of the sons of God. As the
ungodly are called the seed of the serpent, because they
are of his spirit, so the godly are designated the seed of
God, because they are of God’s Spirit. The Spirit of God
strives and rules in them, a n d so t h e y are, in the graphic
language of Scripture, t h e sons of God (Gen. 6: 1 ) .” Note
t h a t God here, in t h e words attributed to Eve, is Elohim.
(Was Mother Eve in a n y sense aware of the implications
of the Divine oracle of Gen. 3 : 15, concerning t h e seed of
the woman?) (c) T o Seth was born a yon, and h e called
his name Enosli (A.V., Enos) , I’. c . , weakness,” “frailty,”
I C

--“probably a sorrowful remembrance of Abel (Psa. 8 : 5 ,

9 0 : 3 ) .”
(4) Note r s ~ ~ r c i u l l ~ ~2617. This closing sentence
LJ,

points up a remarkable event which took place in connec-

tion with the birth of Enosli: “Then began inen to call
upon tlie name of Jeho\~ah.” The LXX gives it: “He was
the man who began to call upon tlie name of t h e Lord.”
This is a difficult passage. Laiige ( 2 6 2 ) holds t h a t what
is iiarrated here must be “the beginning of a formal divine
worship.” Murphy writes ( 162-1 64) : “The gist of the
sentence does not lie in the name Jehovah. For this term
was not then new in itself, as it was used by Eve a t the
birth of Cain; nor was it new in this CoiiiiectioIi, as the
phrase now appears for the first time, and Jeliovali is the
ordinary term employed in it ever afterwards to denote
the true God. As a proper name, Jcliovah is the f i t and
customary word to enter into a solemn invocation, It is,
as we have seen, highly significant. I t speaks of the Self-
447
4:25, 26 GENESIS
existent, the Author of all existing things, and in par-
ticular of man; the Self-manifest, who has shown himself
merciful and gracious to the returning penitent, and with
him keeps promise and covenant. Hence it is the custom
of calling on the name of Jehovah, of addressing God by
his proper name, which is here said to have been com-
menced.” Murphy goes on to point u p the fact that
whereas w e read of God speaking t o man iif Paradise, w e
d o not vend of ngaM speaking t o God. H e writes: “In the
examination that preceded the sentence passed upon the
transgressors, we hear Adam and Eve replying to the ques-
tions of God, but not venturing to open a conversation
with the Most High.” H e proceeds to call attention to
Adam’s belief of the indications of mercy, whether in
word or deed which God gave him. “The bringing of an
offering to God was a step in advance,” he says, of the
“humble, submissive, self-accusing faith” of our first
parents, yet the institution of sacrifice was. essentially a
symbolic act, ccamute sign” of the obedient faith being
manifested by the worshiper, unaccompanied by invoca-
tion or address of any kind. “At length, however, Sheth
was given to Eve, and accepted by her as a substitute for
Habel. Enosh, the child of sorrow, was born to him.
Collateral with this line of descent, and all the anxieties
and wants which it involved, was the growth of a class
of men who were of the spirit of Cain, and receded further
and further from God. In these circumstances of growing
iniquity on the one hand, and growing faith on the other,
believing reason comes to conceive the full import of the
mercy of God, freely and fully accepts of pardon, and
realizes the peace and privilege which it bestows. Growing
man now comprehends all that is implied in the proper
name of God, Jehovah, the author of being, of promise,
and of performance. He finds a tongue, and ventures to
express the desires and feelings that have long been pent
u p in his breast, and are now bursting for utterance. These
448
BEGINNINGS OF TIlE MESSIANIC LINE 4:25, 26
petitions and confessions are now made in a n audible
voice, and with a holy urgency and courage rising above
the sense of self-abasement to the confidence of peace and
gratitude, These adorations are also presented in a social
capacity, and thereby acquire a public notorie..., , The
father, tlie elder of t h e house, is the master of words, and
lie becomes the spokesinan of the brotherhood in this new
relationship into which they have spontaneously entered
with their Father in heaven. The spirit of adoption has
prompted the confiding a n d endearing terms, Abbu,
F u f h e y , and now the winged words ascend to heaven,
carrying the adorations and aspirations of the assembled
saints. The new form of worship attracts the attention
of the early world, and the record is made, ‘Then began
they to call upon the name of t h e Lord,’ t h a t keepetli
covenant and mercy.”
Of course, the analytical critics speculate t h a t t h i s was
an insertion from the J document or Jde, tlie author of
which, they say, was interested especially in origins, and
hence is the source of our information about the begin-
nings of nomadism, music, and metalworking (vv. 20-22),
the origin of the Nepliilim (giants, 6 ; 2 ) , the origin of
viticulture (9:20), the first of the Gibborim (despots,
or in terms of early Greek thought, tyrants, 1 0 : 8), and
the origin of diversity of languages (11:1-9). (See, for
example, IBG, 526). Hence i t is J who, according to
this theory, reports in 4:26 the origin of what is called
“the cult of Yahweh.” Skinner writes in similar vein
(ICCG, 127) : “What historic reminiscence (if any) lies
behind this remarkable statement we cannot conjecture;
but its significance is not correctly expressed when it is
limited to the institution of formal public worshi;, on the
part of a religious community ( D e l i t z d i ) ; and the idea
t h a t it is connected with a growing sense of the distinction
between the human and t h e divine (Ewald et al) is a
baseless fancy. It means t h a t Enos was the first to invoke
449
4:2J, 26 GENESIS
the Deity under this name; and it is interesting chiefly as
a reflection, emanating from the school of J, on the origin
of the specifically Israelite name of God. The conception
is more ingenuous than that of E (Exo. 3:13-15) or P
(Exo. 6 : 3 ) , who base the name on express revelation, and
connect i t with the foundation of Hebrew nationality.”
Skinner goes on to say, however, that the expression (liter-
ally, “call by [means of] the name of Y ” ) , denotes the
essential act in worship, the invocation (or rather evoca-
tion) of the Deity by the solemn utterance of His name.
It rests on the widespread primitive idea that a real bond
exists between the person and his name, such that the
pronunciation of the latter exerts a mystic influence on
the former.” (For the significance of names, see Plato’s
Crutjdus). It should be remarked here that these critics
tear even separate Scripture verses into shreds in their
useless speculation about which belongs to what (J, E, D,
P ) , without benefit of external evidence of any kind what-
soever, a form of “seminary nit-picking” that is paralleled
in no other branch of human study. They ignore the
obvious fact of the repeated interlacing of the Divine
Names, not only in various sections, but even in particular
verses, throughout the Pentateuch. Perhaps the most
significant fact of all is, that the critics are hopelessly a t
variance even among themselves as to the credibility of
their conflicting suppositions. Even the few arguments
that could be acceptable as legitimately supporting the
Documentary Hypothesis are vitiated by this Babel of
academic tongues. (For a critical examination-and ref -
utation-of these theories, the student is advised to study,
along with the present textbook, the great work by William
Henry Green, published in 189j, entitled The Utiity of
fhe Book of Gemsis. The author was, a t t h a t time, Pro-
fessor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature in Prince-
ton Theological Seminary. Unfortunately for the spread
of the truth, students in present-day “standardized”
450
 BEGINNINGS OF TIlE MESSIANIC LINE 4:2J, 26
“theological” seininaries are never given any opportunity
to become acquainted with this book or with any other of
like content. The would-be pundits of our time seem to
assume t h a t no learning ever existed prior to the begiiiiiing
of the present century.)
Concerning Gen. 5:26b, M.Ilenry writes (CWB, 15) :
“The worshipers of God began to distinguish themselves.
The margin reads it, Then begari i i ~ e i ito be called by the
iiavie of rhe Lord, or to call themselves by it.” Whitelaw
summarizes (PCG, 90) : “Either (1) to invoke by prayer
the name of Jehovah, i s . , Jehovah himself as he had been
pleased to discover his attributes and character to men,
referring to the formal institution of public worship. ‘The
expression is elsewhere used to denote all the appropriate
acts and exercises of the stated worship of God-ch. 12:8,
13:4, 21:33; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 105:l (Bush).’ Or ( 2 )
to call themselves by the name of Jehovah-cf. Num,
32:42, Judg. 18:29, Ps. 49:12, Isa. 44: 5.” Rotherham
(EB, 37 n.) : “Or, ‘to invoke with t h e name Y.”’ We
‘ suggest here Lange’s terse simple statement (CDHCG,
262): “The language undoubtedly refers to a general
honoring of the name Jehovah among the pious Sethites.”
(For a further treatment of this problem, see my Geiicsr‘s,
Vol. 111, with respect to the correlation of Exo. 3:14-15
and 6:2-3 with Gen. 22:14),
3. “The Generations of Adaiiz,” f r o m Seth t o Eiioch
(Gen. 5:1-20).
“ 1 This is the book of the geiicrations of A d a m . 2
I n the day tlgat God created i i i a i i , in t h e lilzeiicss of
God iiiade he him; iirale aiid female cifeated he them,
aiid blessed theiii, aiid called their iiaiiic Adaiii) in t h e
day wheii they wcm created. 3 Aiid A d a m lived a hiiii-
drpd aiid thirty y e a n , aiid bcgat a soli in his owii like-
iiess, after his iiiiage; aiid called his iiaiue Seth: 4 aiid
the days of A d a m after he begat S e f h were eight 151111-
dred years: aiid he brgaf soiis arid daiighters. 5 Aiid
45 1
 5:1-20 GENESIS
all the days that Adam lived were iziiie hz~ndred and
thirty years: aiid he died.
“6 A n d Seth lived a huizdred and f i v e years, and
begat Enosh: 7 and Seth lived after he begat Enosh
eight bwzdred and seven years, aizd begat sons ami
daughters: 8 and all the days of Seth were n h e hnn-
dred mid twelve yean, and he died.
“9 And Eiiosh lived izinety yean, and begat Kenan:
10 and Eiiosh lived after he begat KeiiaM eight ban-
dred and fifteeiz years, and begat soiis and dnughters:
1 1 and all t h e days of Enosh were iiiiie hundred and
five y e a ~ s a, n d he died.
“ 1 2 A n d Kenan lived seventy y e m , and begat
Mahalalel: 1 3 aiid Keiiaii lived after he begat Mahal-
d e l eight huiidred aiid f o r t y years, and begat sons and
daughters: 14 arid all the days of Keiian were nine
hiiiidred aiid teti years: aiid he died.
“ I J A n d Mehalalel lived sixty and five years, and
begat Jared: 16 mid Mahalalel lived after he begat
Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons
and daiighfcrs: 17 and all the days of Mabalalel were
eight hiindred riiiiety and five years: and he died.
“18 Aid Jared lived a buridred sixty and t w o yews,
aird begat Eiioch: 19 and Jared lived after he begat
Eizoch eight himilred years, and begat SOIZS and
danghters: 20 and all the days of Jared were nine
hziiidred sixty nrid two years: a i d he died.”
( I ) Note the format in which this genealogy is pre-
sented, consisting of three parts: “ ( a ) the age of each
patriarch a t the birth of his first-born, (b) the length
of his remaining life (with the statement that he begat
other children), and (c) his age a t death” (Skinner,
ICCG, 1 2 8 ) . (The exceptions, for obvious reasons, are in
the cases of Adam (v. 3 ) and Enoch (22, 24). The
section on Noah is, of course, incomplete). But-is it
necessary to assume t h a t the son first mentioned in each
452
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE J:1-20
case was the first-born? Certainly Seth was not Adam’s
first-born, Moreover, each patriarch is said to have “begat
sons and daughters”: might not some of these have been
born (and even been deceased) prior to t h e birth of t h e
son who is mentioned specifically? We must remember
t h a t the Author is giving us the Messianic Genealogy, and
nothing more or less (cf. Luke 3 : 3 6 - 3 8 ) , ( 2 ) V. 3 -
Note again t h a t Adam is said t o have begotten a son in
his own likeness, after his image, not strictly t h e Divine
image in which he had been created, but the image of
God now modified and corrupted by sin-though iiolf
totally dekyaved -transmissible by ordinary generation.
(Traducianism is the view that both the interior and
exterior man [in soul and body, or, as we prefer, spirit
and body] are passed on by natural generation: obviously,
every human being is begotten and born a psychosomatic
unity. Creationism is the theory that each human soul
is immediately created by God and joined to t h e body,
either at conception or a t birth or a t some time between
these two events. The theory of the Preexistence of the
human soul was held by Plato, Philo Judaeus, and Origen.
[See A. H. Strong, ST, 488-4971, Obviously, Traducian-
ism is t h e only view t h a t is in accord with both human
experience and scientific thought.) Probably in most
instances the son named in Gen. 5 was the first-born:
this raises the problem of the laterless of paternity in such
cases. Was this due to some physical cause handed down
by heredity and in proportion to the growing degeneracy
of the race? Or was paternity delayed in order that t h e
father might acquire maturity of faith before producing
a son to be the one who should carry on the Messianic
Line? It may be t h a t the one named in the record was
chosen because his piety was foreknown by God, as in the
case of Jacob (it will be recalled t h a t Esau was rejected
because of his profanity: cf. Heb. 12:16). It must be
remembered t h a t these genealogies are pointed toward the
45 3
S:21-32 GENESIS
identification of those persons who figured in the Messianic
Development. Other genealogical tables are interspersed
only to indicate what relationships these other lines may
have had, favorable or hostile, with the main Lineage of
which the Bible is the historical record. (3) Note that
God “called their name Adam,” that is, Man. Here we
have, obviously, the generic name, which includes both
male and female. “God, as the maker, names the race,
and thereby marks its character and purpose” (Murphy,
MG, 170).
(4) Murphy again: “The writer, according to custom,
completes the life of one patriarch before he commences
that of the next; and so the first event of the following
biography is long antecedent to the last event of the
preceding one. This simply and clearly illustrates the law
of Hebrew narrative” (p. 170). ( S ) There is some dif-
ference of opinion about the interpretation (meaning) of
the various names which appear in this table. The follow-
ing interpretations seem to be fairly accurate: Seth (“sub-
stitute,” “compensation”) , Enosh (“weak man,” “mortal”) ,
Kenan, or Cainan (“possession,” “artificer”) , Mahalalel
(“praise of God”), Jared (“descent”), Enoch (“dedi-
cated”), Methuselah (“man of a dart”), Lamech (“strong
man,” “man of prayer”?), Noah (“comfort,” “rest”), ( 6 )
Someone has cynically described the personages named in
the lines of Cain and Seth as “religious nobodies.” This,
however, is begging the question: it is assuming that be-
cause nothing especially startling is said about those in the
Line of Seth (excepting, of course, Enoch and Noah) that
they were “splendidly nil.” But this notion is not supported
by the interpretation of the names of the Sethites. Nor
is it supported by the moral contrast between those in the
Line of Cain and those in the Line of Seth. It is too
obvious to be questioned t h a t the Sethites were not charac-
terized by the self -pride, restlessness, lust, and violence
454
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE Y:1-20
that is depicted in the story of t h e Cainites. It is significant
too t h a t t h e Sethites include two great men, two men who
were remarkable for their f a i t h and piety-Enoch and
Noah, And it is even more significant (as we shall see
later) chat Enoch and Noah played certain definite roles in
t h e unfolding of God’s Cosmic Plan, There seems to have
been no occasion, therefore, for the inspired author to have
gone into irrelevant details about the other Sethites who
are named. The law of fiarsiiiio~~y is a $ h i e charactPristic
of Diviiie revelation.
4. “And he died.” The f i f t h chapter of Genesis reveals
the tragic record of man’s subjection to the rule of physical
death. N o matter t h a t “there were giants in the earth in
those days”; no matter t h a t there were “mighty men, men
of renown” on the earth; no matter t h a t they built cities,
wrote poetry, invented instruments of music and war; no
matter t h a t they lived to be nearly a thousand years old
and “begat sons and daughters”; still and all i t is recorded
of each of them, “and he died.” Rom. 7:14--“Death
reigned from Adam until Moses. Rom. 5 : 12--“through
one man sin entered into the world, and death through
sin.” Man cannot escape death, Neither by invention,
culture, science, philosophy, or anything within the range
of his genius, can he disarm death of its awesome sting.
Heb. 9:27--“it is appointed unto men once to die, and
after this cometh judgment” (cf. Acts 17:30-31). “And
he died”--“the solemn toll of the funeral bell” (Bonar) ;
“a standing demonstration of the effect of disobedience”
(Murphy). “Eight times in this chapter t h e words a v d
he died occur. , . . There is a double element in human
nature which makes the fact of death so tragic. Man is
akin to all animal existence in t h a t every individual dies.
He is different from the animal in that he is conscious
of dying, foresees it, and feels its contradiction of his
insatiable hunger for life. Nor does the universality of
45 J
5:21-32 GENESIS
death dull its poignancy” (IBG, 5 2 8 ) . Think how men
have tried to deal with death in their desperate efforts to
overcome it, and how, realizing their failure to do so, they
have resorted t o wishful thinking in various cults of agnos-
ticism, atheism, humanism, positivism, skepticism, etc.,
all of which are but varieties of “whistling in the dark.”
But-does not the other side of the coin present an equally
forbidding face? An eminent scientist, writing in Satur-
d a s Review some months ago, declared it to be within the
realm of possibility that human science could prolong the
average life-span of the human being to five hundred years
or more. Then he concluded, But who would want to live
that long in the kind of society in which man lives today
on this earth? Yes, death is inevitable because it is a
Divine appointment, but, let it never be forgotten, a
benevolent appointment.
5 . “ T h e Gevterations of Adnm” f r o m Enoch to N o a h
and His Sons (Gen. 5:21-32),
“21 A n d Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat
Methuselah: 22 aizd Enoch walked with God after he
begai Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons
and daughters: 23 and all the days of Enocb were
three hundred sixty and f i v e years: 24 and Enoch
walked with God: a d he was not: f o r God took him.
“ A n d Metbuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven
years, and begat Lainech: 26 und Methuselah lived
after he begnt Lnmech seven hundred eighty and two
years, and begat sons and daughters: 27 and all the
days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine
years, aizd be died,
“28 A n d Lamech lived a hundred eighty and two
years, and begat a son: 29 and he called his name
Noah, saying, This same shall c o m f o r t us in our work
and in the toil of our bands, w h i c h corneth because of
t h e ground which Jehovah bath cursed. 30 A n d
Lamech lived after he begat N o a h five humdred ninety
45 6
BEGINNINGS OF TI-IE MESSIANIC LINE -
J :2 1 3 2
arid five years, aiid begat soils aiid daiightcrs. 3 1 Aiid
all the days of Laiiiec‘h were seveii hundred seveiity
aiid sevrii years: aud he died.
“32 Aiid N o a h was five hiiiidred years old: aiid
Noah h g a t S h e i i f , Haiii, a i i d Japhrth.”
6. Thc Traiislatioii of Bnocb
( 1 ) Lange (CDHCG, 272) : “The unceasing refrain,
a i d h e died, denotes here also the limit of t h e long and
elevated line of life t h a t seems t o be ever mounting towards
heaven, b u t ever breaks off in the end-with the exception
of Enoch.” “Still, on this dark background of a conquer-
ing death shows still more clearly the power of life. . , ,
And so we get a clear view of the battle of life with death,”
( 2 ) Cf, Jude 14--(‘Enocli, the seventh from Adam”; aiid
Heb, 11 : 5--“By faith Enoch was translated t h a t he should
not see death,” etc, Literally, “he was not, for God took
him.” Or, according to the LXX, “he was not found, for
God translated him.” Murphy (MG, 172) : “This passage
is important for the interpretation of the phrase, aiid be
was riot ( f o u n d ) . It means, we perceive, not absolutely,
he was not, but relatively, he was not extant in the sphere
of sense. If this phrase does not denote annihilation, much
less does the phrase, ‘and he died.’ The one denotes
absence from the world of sense, and t h e other indicates
the ordinary way in which the soul departs from this
world. Here, then, we have another hint t h a t points
plainly to the immortality of the soul. . . . If we omit
the violent end of Habel, the only death on record t h a t
precedes the translation of Henoli is t h a t of Adam. It
would have been incongruous t h a t he who brought sin and
death into the world should not have died. But a little
more than half a century after his death, Henolc is wafted
to heaven without leaving the body. This translation took
place in the presence of a sufficient number of witnesses,
and furnished a manifest proof of the presence and reality
of t h e invisible powers. Thus were life and iniinortality
457
 5:21-32 GENESIS
as fully brought to light as was necessary or possible a t that
early stage of the world’s history. Thus was it demon-
strated that the grace of God was triumphant in accom-
plishing the final and full salvation of all who returned to
God. The process might be slow and gradual, but the end
was now shown to be sure and satisfactory.’’ “Enoch is
distinguished from the other patriarchs in several ways:
his life is shorter but his years number those of the days in
a solar year, he therefore attains a perfect age; he ‘walks
with God’ as Noah did, 6:9; like Elijah, he vanishes
mysteriously, taken by God. Enoch has a prominent place
in subsequent Jewish tradition: he is held up as a model
of piety, Si. 44:16, 49:14, and certain apocryphal books
(one of which is cited in Jude 14-1 5) bear his name” (JB,
21, n.). ( 3 ) In the pagan classical writings there are
accounts of such translations to heaven, as, e.g., those of
Hercules, Ganymede, and Romulus.” (The tradition is
reported even among primitive peoples of the Americas.)
But translation was awarded to these “for their valor or
for their physical beauty, and not, as in the translation of
Enoch, for ‘a pious and religious life.”’ (PCG, 9 6 ) . (4)
Heb. 9:27--“It is appointed unto men once to die”-true!
But Divine appointments (cf. Gen. 3:19) are always sub-
ject to exceptions, ordered by the Divine Will for His
own specific ends: hence, miracles (Acts 2 : 2 2 ) . Obvi-
ously, the translation of Enoch (in the Patriarchal Dispen-
sation) and t h a t of Elijah (in the Jewish Dispensation)
were both designed to be prototypic of the Translation of
the Church (or at least of the living saints) a t our Lord’s
Second Coming. The first universal judgment was exe-
cuted by means of water; the second and last, we are told,
will take the form of fire ( 2 Thess. 1:7-10, Rev. 2 O : l l -
15). Enoch was not left to see the rise of the world’s
corruption to its height; in like manner, we are told, the
Bride of Christ, the Church, will not be permitted to
45 8
I
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE $ :21-32
suffer the Great Tribulation (Matt, 24:21, Rev. 7: 14) ;
“the dead in Christ sliall rise first, then we t h a t are alive,
t h a t are left, shall togetlier with them be caught up in the
clouds to meet the Lord in t h e air, and so shall we ever be
with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4: 13-1 8 ) , Enoch became t h e
prototype of all those “who sliall not sleep, but shall Le
changed, in a moment, in tlie twinkling of an eye, a t the
last trump” ( 1 Cor. 1 j:jO-j8). Enocli and Elijah are
the only Biblical personages who never “tasted of” (experi-
enced) death (John 8:51-52, 11:24-27): each was trans-
lated directly to t h e Throne of God and t h u s became an
heir of immortality by translation (transfiguration, cf.
Matt. 17: 1-8). Note tlie following interesting comment
by Kaufmann (RI, 7 7 ) : “That a mortal should become
God is inconceivable; but t h a t he should join tlie company
of celestial creatures is possible, as in t h e cases of Enoch
and Elijah. This is t h e limit of Biblical apotheosis.”
( 5 ) Concerning the Translation of Enocli, Laiige writes
(CDHCG, 273): “According to Knobel t h e motive for
the translation was probably to rescue Enoch from the age
in which he lived-with relation to ch. 4:lO. Beyond a
doubt, however, the main reason was the fact t h a t he had
become personally ripe for transformation, and t h a t
through his faith there might be introduced into this world
faith in a new life in t h e world beyond (Heb. I l : 5 , 6 ) .
If we would seek farther, we must compare the transla-
tions t h a t follow in sacred history. Elijah is translated
because his consistent legalism must become a judgment
of fire, and a last Day for the apostate Israel: Christ is
translated, because His staying longer in this world must
have come to a sudden conflict of life and death with the
old world, t h a t is, must have had for its consequence the
Last Day; the believers a t the end of the world are trans-
lated, because now the Last Day has actually appeared.
Judging from these analogies, we may conjecture t h a t the
459
Y :21-32 GENESIS
translation of Enoch denoted a decided turning-point in
the life of the old world. At all events, he had not in vain
announced the day of judgment before his departure. A t
this time, it is probable, there was the beginning of corrupt:
alliances between the Sethites and the Cainites. It is the
probable middle time between Adam and the Flood.” (Cf.
Jude 14-15; cf. Deut. 33:2, Matt. 16:27, Dan. 7:10, Heb.
12:22). ( 6 ) It should be noted especially that Enoch
“walked with God.” “Originally,” writes Skinner (ICCG,
131), “this included the idea of initiation into divine
mysteries.” H e adds: “In the OT such an expression (used
also of Noah, 6 : 9 ) , signifies intimate companionship (1
Sam. 2 5 : 1 5 ) , and here denotes a fellowship with God
morally and religiously perfect (Mic. 6:8, Mal. 2 : 6 ) .’’
(How different the motivation to translation here from
that of the translation of Ganymede by the supreme god
of the Greek pantheon, Zeus, with its overtones of homo-
sexuality!) (7) “What a haunting phrase it is: He w a s
not; for God fook hiiiz! There is no effort to elaborate
upon the mystery of death or to presume in human terms
to define what lies beyond it. Only the one great concep-
tion: when the good man dies God takes him and he goes
to be with God. He goes to be with God because he has
learned to be with God already. See what limitless sugges-
tions there are in the brief and simple words, he walked
with God.” Herbert L. Simpson (Aliars of Earth, p. 136)
has a lovely paragraph concerning Enoch: “One day Enoch’s
place on earth was empty, and the people who had known
him drew their own conclusions. He had been known as
the intimate of God; and what more natural than that,
when night fell, he should have gone home with his Friend?
A little girl was telling the story of Enoch in her own
way. ‘Enoch and God,’ she said, ‘used to take long walks
together. And one day they walked farther than usual;
and God said, ‘Enoch, you must be tired; come into My
house and rest’” (quoted, IB, 531). (However, there
460
BEGINNINGS OF TIlE MESSIANIC LINE 7 :2 1-32
needs be a sequel here to complete t h e Biblical story. It
probably should go something like this: “Enoch was so
happy in God’s house, and God was so glad to have him
there, that they kept on living together for ever.”) In
Scripture, to walk with God is to walk by faith, to do
God’s will to the full (Matt. 24:37-42, Luke 17:28-35;
Heb. 11:7-6; Matt, 3:15, 7:24-27; Gal, 7:25),
7, Methiiselah, Lamcch, aiid Noah
(1) It has been said that Methuselah’s only claim to dis-
tinction is the fact that of all t h e antediluvian patriarchs,
lie lived t h e longest, 969 years; t h a t is, his life lacked only
thirty-one years of extending through a millenium (pro-
vided, of course, t h a t the years numbered in this chapter
of Genesis were years as we lrnow them today). This
would mean, of course, t h a t he died in t h e year of the
Flood, (It is worthy of note also, t h a t the shortest life
in this line of descent, t h a t of Eiiocli, was followed by t h e
longest, that of Methuselah.) (2) In the few verses about
Lamech, it should be noted that not only is his son’s name
given (Noah), but the reason for this name is assigned
(“comfort”), Murphy (MG, 173) : “The parents were
cumbered with the toil of cultivating the ground. They
looked forward with hope to the aid or relief which their
son would give them in bearing t h e burden of life, and
they express this hope in his name. . . . This is only an-
other recorded instance of the habit of giving names
indicative of the thoughts of the parents a t the time of
the child’s birth. All iiames were originally significant,
and have still to this day an import. Some were given a t
birth, others a t later periods, from some remarkable circum-
stance in the individual’s life. Hence many characters
of ancient times were distinguished by several names con-
ferred a t different times for different reasons. The reason
for the present name is put on record simply op account
of the extraordinary destiny which awaited the bearer of
it.’’ ( 3 ) Note the names of the three sons of Noah in the
461
 5:21-32 GENESIS
order given in v. 32-Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The
language of 9:18-19 forbids our assuming that Noah sired
any other sons, even after he came forth from the ark:
nor is there any statement made that Noah begat sons
and daughters as is made in the case of each of the patri-
archs who preceded him. Moreover, there is controversy
among various authorities as to the import of the sequence
of these names. There is reason to believe that Japheth
was the eldest and Ham the youngest of the three sons:
this seems to be corroborated by the language of Gen.
1O:21. Those who hold this view explain that Shem is
placed first in the narrative as being spiritually, rather than
physically, the firstborn. (See PCG, 97). (4) It should
be noted too that the name of Noah’s wife is not given,
despite her very great importance to the continuance of
the race. It is significant, is it not, that the inspired writer
goes out of his way, so to speak, to give us the izames of
Lamech’s wives, in the Line of Cain, names indicating
sheer worldliness, but does not find it necessary to name
the women in the Line of Seth, contenting himself with
the terse statement in the case of each Sethite patriarch
(Noah alone excepted) that he “begat sons and daughters”?
There can be but one reasonable explanation of this fact,
namely, t h a t he directs his narrative to the one point he
seeks to emphasize above all others, namely, that it was
through the intermingling of the pious Sethites and the
profane Cainites that universal wickedness became wide-
spread by the time of Noah.
8. The Lorigevity of the Antediluvian Patriarchs
This has ever been a problem of some concern to Bible
students; indeed, the time element throughout the entire
Biblical story is hedged about with questions, some of which
apparently defy solution. This is bound to occur because,
as we have stated heretofore, the realm of God’s activity
is one of timelessness, and this norm is reflected in the
inspired writer’s apparent lack of concern far chronological
462
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE 5 :2 1- 3 2
preciseness, especially in his dealing with t h a t phase of
religious history which had to do with the beginnings of
the Messianic Development,
Several theories have been put forward by different
authorities for the unusual length of life attributed in
Genesis to t h e antediluvian patriarchs. Josephus, for
example, accounts for it on the basis of the superior piety
of the early fathers of the race (Anfiqi~ities I, 3 , 9 ) . By
some it has been attributed to the immunity to mortality
which early man was privileged to enjoy by virtue of
Adam’s original access to the fruit of the Tree of Life.
Still others have explained it o n the basis of a distinct
manifestation of Divine grace t o man, to the end that
religious instincts might be awakened and transmitted to
posterity by ordinary generation (cf. Gen. 4 : 2 6 ) . White-
law writes (PCG, 94) : “We prefer to ascribe t h e longevity
of these antediluvian men to a distinct exercise of grace on
the part of God who designed it to be (1) a proof of t h e
Divine clemency in suspending t h e penalty of sin; ( 2 ) a
symbol of t h a t immortality which had been recovered for
men by the promise of the woman’s seed; and ( 3 ) a
medium of transmission for the faith, for t h e benefit of
both the Church and the world. It seems to this writer,
however, t h a t the unusual longevity of the antediluvians,
granting the accuracy of the chronology t h a t is recorded
about them, is most simply explained by t h e fact t h a t they
were near the fountainhead of t h e race and hence their
physical constitutions had not been weakened by sin and
its consequences, as occurred in the later history of man-
kind. Surely it is significant t h a t subsequent to the Flood,
Abraham lived to be only 175 years old, Moses only 120
years (Gen. 25:7, Deut, 3 4 : 5 ) , David only some 70 years,
and t h a t the average human life-span had dwindled to
some thirty-five or forty years by t h e beginning of t h e
Christian era. One might well wonder if t h e old candle
will not finally flicker out! However, this trend has been
463
 5:21-32 GENESIS
reversed in recent decades; the human life-span has been
raised t o an average of some 70 years as a result of current
advancements in preventive medicine, the control of epi-
demics, and the amazing reduction in infant mortality.
Dr. Jauncey states the two most reasonable explanations
of the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs as follows
(SRG, 73, 74) : “The first is that their concept of a year
was radically different from ours. That there was some
confusion on this point is seen from the ancient records
other than the Bible which also emphasized this longevity.
A list of ancient Babylonian kings gives spans of life ex-
tending in some cases to 1200 years. The Berossos list of
antediluvian kings indicates length of reign for a single
person to be 100 times as much, extending in one case to
64,800 years! Apparently their year unit was not only
different from ours but also varied among themselves. If
we could find out exactly what the Genesis antediluvian
year was, the problem would be simplified enormously.
Another point of view is that it isn’t their longevity which
was abnormal but our brevity! In those early days sin
would not have brought about the ravages that came later.
The human body is built and designed for much longer life
than we enjoy. I t becomes prematurely aged by adverse
conditions that God never intended. There is a lot of
truth in this.’’ (See George A. Barton, Archaeology a d
fhe Bible, ch. V ) .
It can hardly be doubted that primeval chronology was
not characterized by any notable degree of preciseness.
Cornfeld (AtD, 2 5 ) writes: “The genealogy [in ch. 5 1
is noted for the phenomenally long life-spans of its
characters. . . . But all are much younger than their
Babylonian colleagues, the ten antediluvian kings who are
listed on a Mesopotamian clay prism: Babylonian tradition
ascribes to them life-spans of thousands of years. In com-
parison Biblical longevity appears quite brief. This suggests
that the recorded life-spans of Genesis cannot be con-
464
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE 5:21-32
sidered in isolation, but are related to the Mesopotamian
traditions. One of these has been handed down in a later
version by Berossus, a Babylonian historian of the Hellenic
period, who names ten Icings who ruled before t h e Flood,
whose aggregate life-spans total 432,000 years!” Archer
(SOTI, 187) discusses the probleni as follows: “The Wcst-
iiiirisfer Dirtiondry of the Bible (1944) lists three possi-
bilities for the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 10. ( 1 ) If
they represent literal generations without any gaps, t h e
total from Adam to the Flood comes out to 1656 years,
and the total from the Flood to the birth of Abraham
about 290 years. This makes up a grand total of 1946
years from Adam to Abraham. This interpretation is
dubious, however, since no such grand total (or ‘long date’)
is given in the text itself, and since the grouping into ten
pre-Deluge and ten post-Deluge generations is suspiciously
similar to the schematized 14, 14, 14 of Matthew 1 (where
demonstrably there are six or seven links missing). More-
over, Luke 3 : 3 6 indicates t h a t a Cainan, son of Arphnxad,
is missing in Genesis 10:24 (which states that Arpliaxad
was the ‘father’ of Shelach, t h e son of Cainan according to
Luke 3 ) . (2) The genealogies record only t h e most
prominent members of the ancestry of Abraham, omit-
ting an undetermined number of links (although presum-
ably not as many links as actually are named in the lists
concerned). A variation of this view would construe the
formula ‘A begat B’ as meaning either B himself or some
unnamed ancestor of B (perfectly allowable in Hebrew
parlance, since grandfathers are occasionally said to havc
begotten their grandsons; at least Bilhah’s grandsons are
spolcen of as her sons in 1 Chron. 7: 13) . The ages of the
patriarchs who lived several centuries (even 900 years or
more) would be understood as the actual lifetime of the
individuals named. This view would allow for a time span
of possibly five or six thousand years between Adam and
Abraham-depending upon how many links are omitted.
4Gf
 5:21-32 GENESIS
* . . (3 ) Or else the names listed in Genesis 5 represent an
individual and his direct line by primogeniture-an in-
terpretation which makes possible adding the entire life-
time figure almost end to end, thus coming out to a grand
total of 8,227 years between the birth of Adam and the
Flood. For example, when Adam is said to have lived 930
years, this really means that Adam and his direct line were
a t the head of affairs for 930 years. A t the end of this
time they were superseded by the family of Seth, which
remained in control through Seth’s main line for 912 years
(Gen. 5 : 8 ) . Thus it would not have been until 1842 years
a f t e r Adam’s birth that the family of Enosh took over the
leadership-and so on. One difficulty with this theory,
however, is that Seth is the oldest surviving son of Adam to
be mentioned, apart from the exiled Cain, and it is difficult
to imagine by what other son Adam’s direct line would
have descended before the allegedly collateral line of Seth
took over. O n the whole, then, the second interpretation
seems the most to be preferred of the three. The first
interpretation, of course, leaves insufficient room to
account even for the attested history of Egypt, which
doubtless goes back to a t least 3500 years B.C., and that,
too, necessarily after the Flood.” ( I t should be noted, in
this connection, that whereas the text of Genesis 5 in our
versions represents man as having been in existence a t the
time of the Deluge exactly 1656 years, the Septuagint
(which Josephus follows with but three minor differences)
represents the age of man a t the date of that catastrophe
as 2262 years. Other tables such as the Samaritan Pen-
tateuch vary even from these figures. See PCG, 97.)
Green (UBG, 49, 50) : “It should be remarked here that
no computation of time is ever built in the Bible upon this
or any other genealogy. There is no summation of the
years from Adam to Noah, or from Noah to Abraham,
as there is of the abode in Egypt (Exo. 1 2 : 4 0 ) , or of the
period from the exodus to the building of the temple ( 1
466
BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE J:21-32
Ki. 6:1). And as the received chronologies and the gen-
erally accepted date of the flood and of the creation of
the world are derived from computations based on these
genealogies, it ought to be remembered that this is a very
precarious mode of reckoning. This genealogy could only
afford a safe estimate of time on the assumption t h a t no
links are missing and that every name in t h e line of descent
h a s been recorded. But this we have no right to take for
granted. The analogy of other biblical genealogies is de-
cidedly against it. Very commonly unimportant names are
omitted ; sometimes several consecutive names are dropped
together. No one has a right, therefore, to denominate a
primeval chronology so constructed the biblical chronology
and set it in opposition to the deductions of science, and
thence conclude that there is a conflict between the Bible
and science.” (The student is urged to read, in this con-
nection, Part I of John W. Haley’s great book, Alleged
Discrepaiicies of t h e Bible. As f a r as we have been able to
determine the book is now out of print, but probably it
can be purchased from a book store dealing in secondhand
and out-of-print books.)
Let us always keep in mind that with God it is always
7 1 0 ~ : the space-time continuum in which man has his
being is but a single Divine thought. God does not fore-
know-rather, He knows. Hence the time element has
not too much to do with t h e fulfilment of the Eternal
Purpose. It is the Messianic Line t h a t is emphasized
throughout Scripture, not the precise chronology of events
and records used to authenticate the Messianic Develop-
ment. In the words of one of the great hymns of the
faith, with reference to Eternity, Life Everlasting:
“When we’ve been there ten thousand years
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing T h y praise
Than when we’ve first begun!”
:i. :b :c :i. :c

467
5 :21-32 GENESIS
FOR MEDITATION A N D SERMONIZING
T h e Messianic Ministry
2 Cor. 5:21--"Him who knew no sin he made to be
sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness
of God in him." The word Atonement m a n s Cowering.
God's Covering of Grace is the Vicarious Sacrifice of
Christ on the Cross (John 1 : 2 9 ) .
1 . Christ made sin for u s : ( 1 ) made a divine-human
person, yet possessing fully our human nature (John 1:14;
Matt. 1:23; Luke 1 : 3 5 ; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 2:14-18, 4:14-
1 6 ) ; ( 2 ) made a condemned person (Heb. 1 2 : l - 3 , 2 : 9 ) ;
( 3 ) put under guilt, or obligation to suffer (John 3:16;
Luke 24:7, 46; Acts 3 : 1 8 ; 1 Pet. 3 : 1 8 , 2:21-25; Isa. 5 3 : l -
1 2 ) ; ( 4 ) by natural union with the race (Heb. 2:14-15,
Matt. 1 : 2 3 ) .
2. The saints are made righteous (justified) in Him:
( 1 ) made righteous persons (Rom. 10:l-lO; 1 John 3:7;
2 Cor. 5 : 2 l ) ; (2) made justified persons (Rom. 3:21-26,
5:1-2; Tit. 3 : 4 - 7 ) ; ( 3 ) freed from the guilt of sin (Acts
2:38, 10:43; Rom. 6:17-18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 5 : l ; 2
Cor. 3 : 17) ; (4) by spiritud union with Christ (Gal.
3:27-28; Rom. 6 : l - 7 , 8 : l - 2 ; Eph. 2 : l l - I S ; 2 Pet. 1:4,
3:18).
John 17:20, 21--"that they may all be one; as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
us," etc.
,.L :.c :k :c :.L

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART NINETEEN

1 . According to ch. 5 , how many generations were there
from Adam to Noah?
2. What is the over-all design of these two genealogies?
3 . What is the basic theme of the entire Bible?
4. Why is the Line of Cain carried forward only through
Lamech and his family?
468
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MESSIANIC LINE
J , Wliy does t h e Bible mention only three sons of Adam
and Eve?
6, What are the objections to the view t h a t we have here
tf ct
a mingling of two genealogies” or one common
primitive legend in two forins”?
7, What ltind of “image” did Adam hand down to his
offspring ?
8. Explain what t h e last statement in 4:26 means.
9. What does the name “Setli” mean, and what does t h i s
signify?
10. Summarize the interpretations of this passage as given
by each of t h e following: Sltinner, Murphy, M. Henry,
Whitelaw, Lange.
11. What was the special significance of names among
ancient peoples?
12. Define traducianism, creationism, and pre-existence as
theories of the “origin” of t h e soul.
et
13. How explain t h e apparent lateness of paternity” in
the Line of Seth?
14. Why was it necessary to bring Seth into t h e story?
11. Explain what is meant by t h e generic name given in
:1. What does “generic” mean?
16. What is made clear in these genealogies about the
relative piety of those in t h e two Lines?
17. What is the significance of the phrase, “and he died,”
as repeated eight times in ch. J ?
18. Explain what is meant by the law of parsimony as
related to Divine revelation.
19. Explain what is meant by t h e statement, c c he was not,”
in the story of Enoch.
2 0. What is the great difference between the mythological
translations in classic pagan literature and the transla-
tion of Enoch?
469
 GENESIS
2 1. Define translation, transfiguration.
22. What is the prototypic import of the translation of
Enoch and Elijah? What is the explanation of Jude
14?
23. How harmonize these instances of translation with
Heb. 9:27?
24. Explain what is meant in Scripture by the phrase,
“walking with God.”
25. For what is Methuselah particularly noted?
26. What did Lamech name his son and what is the sig-
nificance of the name?
27. For what reason, obviously, are Lamech’s wives named
in the Line of Cain, and their names interpreted,
whereas no women are named in the Line of Seth?
28. What do we know about Noah’s wife?
29. What, according to Jauncey, are the two most reason-
able explanations of the longevity of the men in the
Line of Seth?
3 0. Summarize Whitelaw’s explanation of this problem.
3 1, Summarize Archer’s conclusions regarding the problem.
32. State the facts about primeval chronology as given by
Green.
3 3 , H o w is the problem related (1) to that of time in
general, (2) to the record of the Messianic Line?
34. How does the chronology of the Septuagint differ
from that of the Hebrew Scriptures?
35. What, generally, was the religious condition of the
race in the antediluvian period?

470
 PART T W E N T Y : 6:l-8
THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD
(Gen. 6:l-22)
1. Uiaiversal Degeiieracy (Gen. 6 : 1-8 ) .
“Am?it caiiw to pass, when, iii,eu begair, t o midtiply
011. the face of tbe ground, and da.~.gI?ter.s weire bori?.
i m t o tJ3em, 2 that t h e s o m of God saw t h e daii.ghteips
of iizeii. that they were fair; and the31 took them
wives of all that they chose. 3 Aid Jehovah said, MJ)
SPirit shall iaot strive wit19 m a n for ever, for that he
also is flesh: y e t shall his days be a haciidred and
t w e n t y years. 4 The Nephiliiiz were iii. the earth in
those days, and also after tJgat, when t h e soils of God
came in u n t o the daiqhters of iizeii., and they bare
childreii. to thenz: tJge suiize were the iiiighty i i w i i , that
were of old, the i ~ z e i i of
, reizowii.
‘‘5 A n d Jehovah saw that the ,wickedness o f iizaii. I

was great iia the earth, aizd t h a t every iiizagiiiatioia of

the thoi~ghtsof his heart was oiily evil coli tiiiually.
6 A n d it repented Jehovah t h a t he had made iizaiz 01%
the earth, and it grieved him a t his heart. 7 A n d
Jehovah said, I will destroy imaii, wI!oiiz I have created
fro if^ the face of the ground; both nzaii, and beast,
aizd creepiizg things, and biirds of the heavens; for it
repeiztetb m e that I have .made theiiz. 8 B u t N o a h
fouizd favor iia the eyes of Jehovah,.”
(1) V. I . The word adaiizah is used here, translated
“ground”: it occurs also in vv. 7 and 20, and .in ch. 7,
vv. 4, 8. It is thus distinguished from erets, which occurs
repeatedly throughout Genesis and i.n the story of the
Flood in particular, and may be rendered either “earth”
or “land.” (Incidentally space is lacking here for any
elaborate discussion of the problems of the documentary
(critical) analysis of the Genesis account of the Flood or
those of the actual extent of t h e Flood as a historical
event. For an exhaustive refutation of tlie former, the
47 1
6:l-8 GENESIS
student is again advised to study Green (UBG) and Allis
(FBM) ; and for equally thoroughgoing treatments of the
latter, the various works recently published by Kehwinkel,
Morris and Whitcomb, Archer, Unger, Ranim, et al: for
a listing of these books, see Bibliographical material on the
introductory pages of this textbook. C.C.C.) .
( 2 ) V. 2. The “sons of God” and the “daughters of
men.” One theory is that marriage alliances were formed
by supernatural beings with mortal women, and that from
these unnatural unions there arose “a race of heroes or
demigods who must have figured largely in Hebrew folk-
lore. It is implied, though not expressly said, that the
existence of such beings, intermediate between the divine
and the human, introduced an element of disorder into the
Creation which had to be checked by the special interposi-
tion of Yahweh” (Skinner, ICCG, 139). (See Hesiod’s
account, in his Works and Days, of the ages of man: first,
the golden race; then in the order named, the silver, the
brazen, the Hevlzi~ods,and finally the iron race. Cf. also
the myth of the Titans, that of the Cyclopes, and the
accounts of the quasi-divine personages of the Heroic Age,
etc.). Green (UBG, 5 3 ) : “The sons of God are not angels
nor demigods, whose intermarriage with the daughters of
men brought forth a race of monsters or superhuman
beings. This purely mythological conceit was foisted
upon the passage in certain apocryphal books like the book
of Enoch; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled by
the analogy of ancient heathen fables. But it was repelled
by the great body of Jewish and Christian interpreters from
the earliest periods, though it has been taken up again by
a number of modern scholars. It is assumed by them t h a t
a transgression of angels is here spoken of, though the
existence of angels has not been before mentioned nor in
any way referred to in the previous part of Genesis. This
view has no sanction whatever in Scripture. Jude, vs. 6,
7, and 2 Pet. 2:4 have been tortured into sustaining it;
472
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:l-8
but they contain no reference to this passage whatever,
And there is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for t h e
adoption by t h e sacred writers of mythological notions in
general, or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage
of angels and men.” The JB (21,n) summarizes: “The
author uses a popular story of a race of giants, in Hebr.
Nephilim, the Titans of Eastern legend, born of the union
between gods and mortals. The author does not present
this episode as a myth nor, on t h e other hand, does he
deliver judgment on its actual occurrence; he records the
anecdote of a race of supermen simply t o serve as an
example of the increasing human malice t h a t is to provoke
the Deluge. Later Judaism and almost all the earliest
ecclesiastical writers identify the ‘sons of God’ with the
fallen angels; but from the 4th century onward, as the
ideas of angelic natures become less material, the Fathers
commonly take the ‘sons of God’ to be Seth’s descendants
and the ‘daughters of men’ those of Cain.” That these
phrases have reference to intermarriage of either demigods
or angels with mortal women is absurd. As Green puts it
(p. 54) : “Sexual relations are nowhere in Scripture attrib-
uted to superior beings. There is no suggestion that angels
are married or are given in marriage; indeed the contrary
is expressly declared (Matt. 2 2 : 3 0 ) . Male and female
deities have no place in the Bible, except as a heathen
notion which is uniformly reprobated. The Hebrew lan-
guage does not even possess a word for ‘goddess.’ The
whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God
or angels, is absolutely foreign t o Hebrew thought, and for
that reason cannot be supposed to be countenanced here.”
The JB comment that from the 4th century on, the ideas
of angelic nature became less material in the writings of
the Fathers, seems to ignore completely these facts of the
Scriptures themselves. There are, of course, poetic refer-
ences t o angels as “sons of God’’ in Job (1:6, 2:1, 38:7)
and in Psalms (29: 1, 89:6). The phrase occurs also in
47 3
6:1-8 GENESIS
Dan. 3 :2 5 ; here, however, the term has nothing to do with
the use of it in Genesis, as it is the language of Nebu-
chadnezzar and hence represents a genuine heathen concep-
tion (or it could be an identification on the king’s part,
unwittingly of course, or a pre-incarnate manifestation of
the Eternal Logos: cf. Mic. 5 : 2 ) . O n the contrary, the
phrase, “sons of God,’’ is a common designation of the
chosen people, the worshipers of the living and true God,
throughout the Old Testament (cf. Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1,
32:5, 6, 1 8 , 19; Hos. l : l O , 1 1 : l ; Isa. 43:6, 4 5 : l l ; Jer.
3 1 :20, cf. 2 Cor. 6: 1 8 ) , whereas worshipers of false gods
are spoken of as sons and daughters of those gods (e.g.,
Num. 21 :29, Mal. 2 : 1 1 ) , “It is in entire accord with this
Biblical usage that the pious race, who adhered to the true
worship of God, are called the sons of God in contrast with
the descendants of Cain, who had gone out from the
presence of Jehovah, and abandoned the seat of his worship
entirely” (Green, s s ) . Note also the correspondence
between this interpretation and the numerous passages
throughout the Pentateuch in which intermarriage of
Israelites with Canaanites is viewed with deep concern, if
not accually forbidden, lest the former should be seduced
into idolatry, or into the gross moral corruptions of the
Cult of Fertility, as a consequence. (E.g., in Genesis
24:3-4, 27:46, 28:l-2, 26:34, 3 5 ; 28:6-8, ch. 3 4 ) . Obvi-
ously any kind of warning against intermarriage with
angels does not occur in Scripture, because it would have
been meaningless.
Green’s conclusions are irrefutable (UBG, 56) : “This
explanation of how it came to pass that the pious portion
of the race were infected with the universal degeneracy is
not only appropriate in the connecrhn, but is necessary to
account for the universality of the following judgment,
which is repeatedly and largely insisted upon. This is an
integral and essential part of the narrative, the omission
of which would leave an unfilled chasm. The primal
474
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6 : l - 8
source of human corruption had been germinally shown
in the fall (ch. 3 ) ; the degeneracy of the Cainites had
been traced (ch. 4 ) . Nothing but good, however, had
thus f a r been said of the race of Seth (4:26, 5:22, 24, 2 9 ) .
That this pious race were themselves involved in the de-
generacy which had overtaken t h e rest of mankind, is
here stated for the first time. But this is necessary t o
explain why t h e whole race of man, with the exception
of a single family, should be doomed to destruction.”
Again ( 5 6 , 57) : “The explanation now given is further
confirmed by v. 3 , where sentence is passed for t h e offence
described in the preceding verse. In what t h e offence
consisted, if the sons of God were angels, is not very
obvious, It is not illicit intercourse which is described:
the terms used denote lawful marriage. But if it was
wrong for the angels to marry women, the angels surely
were the chief offenders; and yet no penalty is denounced
upon angels. The divine sentence falls exclusively upon
man. There is such an obvious incongruity in this that
Budde insists that ver. 3 is an interpolation and does not
belong in this connection, but has been transferred from
the account of the fall of our first parents. The incon-
gruity that is alleged, however, does not show the verse t o
be an interpolation, but simply that the mythological sense
which has been given to the passage is false.” Finally, “it
is objected that ‘the daughters of men’ must have the same
universal sense in ver. 2 as in ver. 1; and that the contrast
of ‘the sons of God’ with ‘the daughters of men’ shows
that different orders of being are here referred to. But
this contrast works precisely the other way. It has already
been shown that in Scripture language t h e sons of God are
his chosen people-the Godfearing race. In contrast with
them ‘the daughters of men’ are necessarily limited to the
rest of mankind, the ungodly mass” (ibid., p. 5 8 ) . We
coitdide, theref o w , without fear of s 1 m x s s f ul coli tradic-
tion,, that what is pictured here is the iiifermii?gliiig of the
47 5
6:1-8 GENESIS
jioau Sethites with the profane Cainites; moreover, that
the Phrase, “the SOIZS of God,” has special reference in this
Passage to the Messiaizic Liize, which in the fifth chapter
has been traced fYom Adam, through Seth, t o Nogh.
( 3 ) V. 3 . ( a ) “My Spirit shall not strive with man
for ever” (cf. John 16:7-8). “My Spirit,” that is, Ruach
Elohim, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. “Shall not
strive with man,” i.e., He will put no coercion on the
volitions of men, and, after giving ample warning, instruc-
tion, and invitation, “He will, as a just judgment, on the
unbelieving and impenitent, withdraw his Spirit and let
them alone” (Murphy, MG, 197). Even Divine grace
has its limits. God bore long and patiently with the in-
iquity of the antediluvian world, but the time came, as it
always does in such cases, when longsuffering love had to
give way to strict justice (Gal. 6:7-8). In our Dispensa-
tion, God’s love will follow man to his grave, but in all
justice it cannot follow him farther (cf. Psa. 89:14; Rev.
20:13; Luke 13:3, 16:19-31; Ezek. 18:23; Isa. 55:7; 1
Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9), God is not just a glorified bell-
hop who will be satisfied with our puny tips, nor is He a
cosmic plumber whom we can call in for repairs and then
dismiss nonchalantly. Not even Divine Love can go so
far as to put a premium on sin! (b) “For that he also is
flesh,” i.e., in view of the fact that the natural man is
corporeal as well as spiritual (Gen. 2:7) and that now,
since the fall, “the flesh has gained the upper hand, and
the spirit is in the bondage of corruption.” (c) “Yet shall
his days be a hundred and twenty years.” This statement
“if spoken of the generation then living, would mean, that
they should not survive that limit; if of successive genera-
tions of men, that this should henceforth be the term of
human life. The former is demanded by the context.
The latter is preferred by critics whose uniform usage is
to interpret a t variance with the context if possible. It is
here absolutely without support. There is no suggestion
476
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD G:1-8
anywhere that the duration of Iiuiiiaii life was ever fixed
a t one hundred and twenty years. It is contradicted by
all that is recorded of the ages of subsequent patriarchs
froin Noah to Jacob. This verse, then, explicitly points
to a catastrophe, in wliich t h a t whole generation should
be involved, and which should t a k e place in one hundred
and twenty years” (Green, p. 6 0 ) . God’s Spirit has always
striven with inan, even froin the beginning when He tried
to bring t h e first sinners to the point of repentance and
confession. Dirt eueu Diviiic g r a m has its liitiits, and, when
the wickedness of man became so great t h a t tlie earth was
literally filled with violence, God of necessity said, “I will
destroy” (cf. Ezek. 21:27, Acts 17:26), But even then
H e sent Noah to warn tlie antediluvians of “things not
seen as yet” (Heb. 11 : 7 ) , and granted a reprieve of one
hundred and twenty years to give them opportunity for
repentance and reformation and so to demonstrate to
future generations t h a t t h e judgment to come upon them
was just, This is a demonstration of the limits to which
the love of God will go, to pardon and to restore one of
His rebellious creatures. If a human soul is bound t o go
to perdition, he must do so in t h e very face of the ineffable
manifestations of His longsuffering grace (John 3 : 16-17,
1:17; Roin. 3:24, 5:20; Eph. 2:8; Tit. 2 : l I ; 1 Pet. 5:12;
2 Pet. 3:18).
(d) T. Lewis sumiiiarizes (CDHCG, 2 8 J ) : Om “has
no right to say that ‘the contrast of spirit and flesh in the
moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not
occur iii the Old Testaineiit,’ unless it can be shown that
this is not a clear case of it.” Again, in re v. 3 : “When
ridacL7 is thus regarded as the spiritual, or rational, in man,
in distinction from the cariid, tlie sentence becomes a
prrdirfioii, instead of a declaration of judgment-a sorrow-
ful prediction, we may say, if we lteey in view the pre-
dominant aspect or feeling of the passage. The spirit, tlie
reason, that which is most divine in m a n , will not always
477
 6:1-8 GENESIS
rule in him. It has, as yet, maintained a feeble power,
and interposed a feeble resistance, but it is in danger of
being wholly overpowered. It will not hold out forever;
it will not always maintain its supremacy. And then the
reason given suits exactly with such a prediction: he is
becoming flesh, wholly carnal or animal. If allowed to
continue he will become utterly dehumanized, or that
worst of all creatures, ai? aizimal with a Yeasoig, but wholly
fleshly in its ends and exercises, or with a reason which is
but the servant of the flesh, making him worse than the
most ferocious wild beast-a very demon-a brutal nature
with a fiend’s subtlety only employed to gratify such bru-
tality. Man has the supernatural, and this makes the
awful peril of his state. By losing it, or rather by its
becoming degraded to be a servant instead of a lord, he
I falls wholly into nature, where he cannot remain station-
ary, like the animal who does not ‘leave the habitation to
which God first appointed him.’ The higher being, thus
utterly fallen, must sink into the demonic, where evil be-
comes his god, if not, as Milton says, his good. . . . The
whole aspect of the passage gives the impression of some-
thing,lilie an apprehension that a great change was coming
over the race-something so awful, so irreparable, if not
speedily remedied, that it would be better that it should be
blotted out af earthly existence, all but a remnant in whom
.
the spiritual, or the divine in man might yet be preserved.”
Again: “On these deeper aspects of humanity, consult that
most profound psychologist, John Bunyan, in his Holy
. , War, or his History of the Town of Mansoul, its revolt
.from King Shaddai, its surrehder to Diabolus, and its
recovery by Prince Immanuel. Bunyan was Bible-taught
in these matters, and that is the reason why his knowledge
of man goes so far beyond that of Locke, or Kant, or
Cousin.” Cf. also Aristotle (Politics, I, 3 , 3 0 ) : “For man,
when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated
from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed
478
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:l-8
injustice is the more dangerous, aiid he is equipped a t birth
with arms, meant to be used by intelligeiice aiid virtue,
which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he
have not virtue, he is the most unholy and t h e most savage
of animals, aiid the most full of lust and gluttony.” Are
not the foregoing descriptions of man’s lurking bestiality
supported today by the front page stories in every news-
paper throughout the entire world? (Cf. Matt. 24:37-39,
Luke 7:26-27).
(4) V. 4. ( a ) The Nephilim-who were they? The
LXX translates it “giants”; other old Greek versions,
ct
violent men.” The word occurs again only once-in
Num. 13 : 33. The notion that t h e Nephilim of this
passage in Numbers were lineal descendants of those of
Genesis 6 is simply an unproved assumption of the destruc-
tive critics, obviously for the purpose of casting doubt on
the authenticity of the text and perhaps of the entire
narrative of the Flood. The “giants” of Numbers were
Canaanites, evidently men “of great stature and powerful
frame,” whose size so excited the imagination of the “spies”
sent out by Moses (Caleb and Joshua excepted) t h a t their
report was a gross exaggeration of t h e facts. (Cf. also
1 Sam, 17:4-10, 21:9, 22:lO). H o w could the Nephilim
reported by the spies have been descendants of those of
antediluvian times if there had occurred in the meantime a
catastrophe which had swept away all mankind except
Noah and his family? Green (UBG, 57-58) holds t h a t v.
4 indicates that the Nephilim did not spring from the
union of the sons of God and the daughters of men,
because, “the statement is that ‘the Nephilim were in the
earth’ prior to these intermarriages, and also after these
intermarriages had talien place.” Again: “The idea that
the Nephilim were a superhuman race sprung from the
union of angels with the daughters of men is completely
nullified by the explicit declaration t h a t the Nephilim
existed before such marriages took place as well as after.
479
 6:1-8 GENESIS
No new species of creatures can be intended, therefore,
whose origin is traced to the intermarriage of different
orders of beings.” With this last statement we can agree.
But we see no particular reason from the reading of the
Scripture text, for arguing that the Nephilim existed
befove aiid after the intermingling of the sons of God
with the daughters of men.
( b ) A question of some import arises a t this point,
namely, Were the Nephilim of a pre-Adamic breed?
Certainly this is not to be regarded as an impossibility.
Cf. Archer (SOTT, 188-189) : “To revert to the problem
of the Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, the Nean-
derthal and all the rest (possibly even the Cro-Magnon
man, who is apparently to be classed as Homo sapiens,
but whose remains seem to date back a t least to 20,000
B.C.), it seems best to regard these races as all prior to
Adam’s time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant.
We must leave the question open, in view of the cultural
remains, whether these pre-Adamite creatures had souls
(or, to use the trichotomic terminology, spirits). But
the implication of Genesis 1:26 is that God was creating
a qualitatively different being when H e made Adam (for
note that the word rendered ‘man’ in Gen. 1:26, 27 is the
Hebrew ‘AcEa?n’),a being who was uniquely fashioned in
the image of God. Only Adam and his descendants were
infused with the breath of God and a spiritual nature
corresponding to God Himself. Romans S :12-21 demands
that all mankind subsequent to Adam’s time, a t least, must
have been literally descended from him, since he entered
into covenant relationship with God as the representative of
the entire race of man. This indicates that there could
have been no true genetic relationship between Adam (the
first man created in the image of God) and the pre-Adamic
races. However close the skeletal structure of the Cro-
Magnon man (for example) may have been to Homo
sapieus, this factor is scarcely relevant to the principal
480
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6 : l - 8
question of whether these cave men possessed a truly
liuman soul or personality. They may have been extermi-
nated by God for reasons unknown prior to t h e creation of
the original parent of the present human race. Adam,
then, was the first man created in t h e spiritual image of
God, according to Genesis 1:26, 27, and there is no evi-
dence from science to disprove it.” As Archer points out,
the French scientist, Lecomte du Nouy, in his remarkable
volume, Hvman Destiny, explains evolution as a response
to the Divine Will. Man arises, he insists, from within
the evolutionary process; and a t a certain moment, per-
haps in connection with t h e Cro-Magnon age, man became
truly man by a mutation-a mutatioii in which God
breathed into him “free will,” and a capacity to choose
between good and evil, i.e. a conscience. (Cf. Archer,
ibid., 188, n . ) .
(c) However, it seems to ine that Lange comes nearer
to the solution of this problem (CDHCG, 2 8 6 ) . In dis-
cussing the phrases, “mighty inen t h a t were of old, men
of renown,” he writes: “A designation, not merely of
offspring from the mismarriages, but referring also t o the
Nephilim who are earlier introduced, as it appears from the
appended clause. The author reports things from his own
standpoint, and so the expression, ‘they were of old, men
of renown,’ affirms their previous existence down to t h a t
time. Cain was the first. But now there are added to the
Cainites and the Cainitic degenerate offspring of these
sensual mesalliances. It was true, then, as it h a s been in
all other periods of the world’s history, the men of violent
deeds were the men of renown, very much t h e same
whether f a i i i o i ~ s or inf ~711074s.” Cornf eld contributes to
the clarification of the problem as follows (AtD, 2 5 ) :
“We may perhaps link the Nephilim of Genesis with the
‘mighty men t h a t were of old,’ these semi-legendary heroes
of prehistory whose memory and deeds are recorded in the
ancient annals of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and other lands of
48 1
6:1-8 GENESIS
antiquity. These were the founders of the first dynasties,
lawgivers and the like. The word Nephilim (in Arabic-
nabil) means princes. So the Nephilim need not be in-
terpreted as a race of ‘giants,’ but ‘great men.’ In this
Hebrew tradition the crisis described here was held as
proof that these semi-divine and arrogant Nephilim were
.
more bent on evil than good. . . In the opinion of G.
Ernest Wright the tradition of early ‘giants on the earth’
may coincide with the beginning of the Dynastic Ages
from 3000 B.C.E. (the Early Bronze Age) and the suc-
cession of kings who established the first great empires.
Great personalities who stood head and shoulders above
their fellows began to emerge. Illustrations of the time
may be held to explain the fame of such ‘giants.’”
(d) How did God’s Spirit strive with the antediluvians?
How, according to Scripture does God’s Spirit, the Holy
Spirit, uniformly strive with rebellious man? How, or by
what means, does the Spirit convict men of sin, righteous-
ness and judgment (John 16:8) ? Through the instrumen-
tality of the Word, of course, spoken or written: faith
comes from reading or hearing the Divine Word (Rom.
10 :14- 17) . Experience thus confirms Scripture : where
there is no preaching, no hearing, no reading of the Word,
no contact with the Word, there is no faith, no conversion,
no Church. The entire evangelistic and missionary enter-
prise of the Church of Christ is predicated on this fact
(Acts 28:23-28). The Spirit and the Word “go together”
(Isa. 59:21). The Spirit and the Word (Logos) acted to-
gether in the Creation (Gen. 1:2, 3, etc.) . The Spirit
sustains and preserves the whole Creation by the power of
the Word (Heb. 1 : 1-4, 2 Pet. 3 :5-7). The Spirit has, in
all ages, wrought miracles by the instrumentality of the
Word (Num. 20:7-13; Josh. 10:12-13; John 1:l-14;
Matt. 14:19-20, 8:3, 8 ; John 4:50; Matt. 8:32, Mark.
1 : 2 5 , 1:22, 27; Luke 7:14; John 11:43; Acts 3:6, 9:34,
482
 T H E WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:l-8
9:40; Heb. 4:12; Luke 16:29-31; Roni. 10:6-8). The
Spirit strove with iiieii through t h e Word proclaimed by
holy men of old ( 2 Pet. 1:21, 1 Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 1:1,
Neh. 9 :3 0 ) ; through the teaching of Christ who possessed
the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34, 6:63, 8:31-
32, 17:17; Matt. 7:24-27; Heb. 1:2; Matt. 12:28, cf. Exo.
8:19, Luke ll:20-the “finger of God” is, in Scripture
a metaphor of power exercised by the Spirit of God) ;
through the Word proclaimed and recorded by the Spirit-
guided Apostles (John 14:26, 1j:26-27, 16:7-15; Acts
1:8, 10:36-43; 1 Cor. 2:6-16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37,
etc.). The Seed of the Kingdoin is the Word of God
(Luke 8 : 11) ; it is the incorruptible seed, because spiritual
life is in it and is generated through it (1 Pet. 1:23) ;
hence, the Gospel is-not just u power, nor oiie of the
powers-but the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believes (Rom. 1:16-17). How, then, did the Spirit
strive with m e i a iii aiitedilu,viaii tiiizes? Through Noah,
of course, who was God’s preacher of righteousness to the
people of his day ( 2 Pet. 2: j), How did Noah come to
know of the doom about to descend on mankind? He
knew it by faith, t h a t is, God forewarned him of the
impending catastrophe and he believed God (Heb. 11 :7).
For oiie hundred and twenty years Noah proclaimed t h e
inevitability of Divine judgment; for one hundred and
twenty years, Christ, through Noah, warned the masses of
the antediluvian world who by this time had, by their
own wicked works, incarcerated themselves in the prison-
house of sin (Isa. 42:6-8, 61:l-3; Luke 4:17-19; 1 Pet.
3 : 18-22) , t h a t unless they repented, they should all like-
wise perish (cf. Luke 13 :3). But all in vain! The only
thanks he got was scorn, ridicule, and perhaps even violence.
(I alii reminded of the oldtime preacher’s sermon subject,
“What Happened t o the Carpenters who Helped Noah
Build the Ark?” What did happen to them? T h e pit of
48 3
6: 1-8 GENESIS
the abyss, of course!) The Spirit of God is still striving
with ungodly men, calling them to repentance and re-
demption. But He will not always do so: the time will
come when the line between Divine mercy and justice
will surely be drawn. The Spirit has ceased striving with
His Old Covenant people and they are today suffering the
consequences of their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus
(Matt. 23:37-39, 27:25; Luke 21:20-24). The time will
come, and indeed may not be too far off (cf. Matt. 24:35-
39, 24:29-31), when God’s Spirit will quit striving with
‘111 humanity (Matt. 2 5 :3 1-46) ; then cometh judgment
(Heb. 9:27, Acts 17:30-31, Matt. 12:41-42, Rom. 2:1-11),
in which all mankind shall be judged, each according to
his own works (Rom. 14:lO-12; 2 Cor. j : l O , 1 l : l l ; Gal.
6-7; Heb. 10:26-27; Rev. 2O:ll-14, 22:lO-15).
( 5 ) Vw. 5-8. (a) God’s “repentance.” Note the JB
renderirig (67-69) : “Yahweh saw the wickedness of man
was great on the earth, and that the thoughts in his heart
fashioned nothing but wickedness all day long. Yahweh
regretted having made man on the earth, and his heart
grieved. ‘I will rid the earth’s face of man, my own crea-
tion,’ Yahweh said, ‘and of animals also, reptiles too, and
the birds of heaven; for I regret having made them.’ But
Noah found favour with Yahweh.” The JB annotator,
who follows the critical theory in general, including the
Documentary Hypothesis, comments as follows: “There
are several Babylonian stories of the Flood which are in
some respects remarkably similar to the biblical narrative.
This last does not derive from them but draws upon the
same source, namely upon the memory of one or more
disastrous floods in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris
which tradition had enlarged to the dimensions of a world-
wide catastrophe. But there is this fundamental differ-
ence: the author has used this tradition as a vehicle for
teaching eternal truths-that God is just and merciful,
that man is perverse, t h a t God saves his faithful ones
484
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:l-8
(cf. I-Ieb. 11:7), The Flood is a divine judgment which
foreshadows t h a t of the latter days (Lk. 17:26f; Matt.
24:37f), j u s t as Noah’s salvation prefigures t h e saving
waters of baptism, (1P 3:20-21) .’’ (p. 23, n.). Again:
“This ‘regret’ of God is a human way of expressing tlie
fact t h a t tolerance of sin is incompatible with his sanctity
( I S 15:29 warns us t h a t t h e phrase is not to be taken too
literally) ; b u t in a far greater number of passages it means
t h a t God’s anger is appeased and liis threat withdrawn,
see Jer. 26:3.” Coriifeld writes in siinilar vein (AtD, 26) :
“There is an architectural unity in tlie spivit of t h e tradi-
tions related to the ten generations preceding Noah. The
writers sketch the gradual deterioration of nian and an
increase in sin and violence which parallels his increase in
knowledge and skill. As he gains in power, man turns
against liis Creator and corrupts the earth through violence.
There is an implied warning against the insidious dangers
of man following his own designs without heeding his re-
sponsibility before God, to whom h e is answerable. God
is described as experieiicing human feelings of grief t h a t
he had ever created man, and h e decided to punish tlie
world. Some steps were taken to curb this upsurge of
man to semi-divinity, such as the reduction of man’s
hitherto phenonienally long life-span to ‘one hundred and
twenty years.’ As violence did not abate, drastic punisli-
ment was called for. This is obviously an etiological tale
meant to explain the proverbial span which one Jew still
wishes another.” (See siifit’a: this 12O-year life-span theory
does not harmonize with Scripture as a whole. Abrahani
lived to be 175 (Gen. 2 5 : 7 ) ; cf. also Psa. 9 0 : 10 and siinilar
O.T. passages. The theory is wholly at variance with
relevant New Testament teaching. The 120 years were
obviously years of Divine grace extended to the antedilu-
vian people for t h e purpose of giving them opportunity to
repent and reform their lives,)
48 5
6:l-8 GENESIS
Murphy states the problem involved here, with great
clarity (MG, 182) : “Repentance ascribed to the Lord
seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the
Eternal Self-Existent. . . . In sooth, every act here re-
corded-the observation, the resolve, the exception-seems
equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeable-
ness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act
of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference
with the order of nature, seems a t variance with inflexi-
bility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite
mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is
not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as
they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly,
God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of person-
ality, freedom and holiness; and the passage before us is
designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action,
and thereby to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind
from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these
statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit,
analogous a t least to those of the human. And, lastly, to
verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should
be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its
practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists be-
tween the liberty and the immutability of God. That
change of state which is essential to will, liberty, and
activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we
know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of
the divine purpose.” Green (UBG, 6 3 ) : “ ‘Human feel-
ings attributed to God’ (6:6, 8 ) . Elohim is the general
term for God, and describes him as the creator of the
world and its universal governor, while Jehovah is his
personal name, and that by which he has made himself
known as the God of a gracious revelation. Hence divine
acts of condescension to men and of self-manifestation are
more naturally associated with the name Jehovah; whence
486
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6 : l - 8
it follows that anthropopathies and antliropomorpliisms
occur chiefly in Jehovah sections. But there is no in-
consistency between the ideas which these are intended to
suggest and the most spiritual and exalted notions of the
Most High. Tlie loftiest conceptions of God are, through-
out the Scriptures, freely combined with anthropomorphic
representations. His infinite condescension is no prejudice
to his supreme exaltation. These are not different ideas of
God separately entertained by different writers, but dif-
ferent aspects of the divine Being which enter alike into
every true conception of Him.” (Cf. 1 Sam. 15 :29, 3 S ;
Amos S:8, 7:3, 5:21; Gen. 8 : 2 1 ; Lev. 1:13, 26:31; esp.
Jer. 18 :fi - 10) . (An anfhiropon7orfihic passage is one in
which God is represented as thinking and acting as human
being would think and act; a n a/?thltopopnfhicstatement
is one in which God is represented as experiencing the feel-
ings such as a human being would experience.)
Lange suminarizes the problem before us with complete
clarity, as follows (CDHCG, 287) : “A peculiarly strong
anthropopathic expression, which, however, presents t h e
truth that God, in coiisistency with his immutability,
assumes a changed position in respect to changed man
(Psa. 18:27), and t h a t , as against the impenitent man who
identifies himself with t h e sin, he must assume t h e appear-
ance of hating the sinner in the sin, even as lie hates t h e
sin in the sinner. But t h a t Jehovah, notwithstanding, did
not begin to hate inan, is shown in the touching anthropo-
morphism t h a t follows, ‘mid it grieved hi711 in his heart.’
The first kind of language is explained in the flood, the
second in t h e revelation of Peter, 1 Pet. 3:19, 20, and 4:6.
Against the corruption of man, though extending to the
depths of his heart, there is placed in contrast God’s deep
‘grieving in his heart.’ But the repentance of God does
not t a l e away his uncliaiigeableiiess and his counsel, but
rightly establishes them, so neither does God’s grieving de-
487
6:1-8 GENESIS
tract from his immutability in blessedness, but shows,
rather, God’s deep feeling of the distance between the
blessedness to which man was appointed and his painful
perdition. Delitzsch does indeed maintain it, as most real
or actual truth, that God feels repentance, and he does not
equate this position with the doctrine of God’s unchange-
ableness, unless it b: with the mere remark that the pain
and purpose of the divine wrath are only moments in an
everlasting plan of redemption, which cannot become out-
ward in its efficacy without a movement in the Godhead.
And yet movement is not change.” Repentance, in
Scripture, is a tiirizing expressed in terms of will (Matt.
12:39-41; Jon. 3:8; Acts 26:17-18; Isa. 1:16-17; Heb.
6: 1 ) . Repentance, insofar as man is concerned, is a turn-
ing expressed in terms of will leading to a reformation of
life, as clearly portrayed in the Narrative of the Forgiving
Father (Luke 15:7, 18-24). With God also, repentance
is a “turning” expressed in terms of attitude, disposition,
will; a turning occasioned by the kind of response that
is in harmony with changing attitudes in man, but in
terms of the immutable norms of Divine justice and mercy.
(This is illustrated most clearly, perhaps in Jer. 18: 5 - 1 0 ) .
(Cf. Exo. 13:17-18, 32:l-14; Psa. 110:4, Heb. 7:21; Jer.
4:28: in many Scriptures, God’s repentance indicates simply
a change of purpose, without strong anthropopnthic over-
tones. )
2 . Nonh: Mniz of Faith (Gen. 6:9-12).
9 These m e t h e geiievatiotrs of Noah. Noah auns n
righteous innti, niid perfect irr his geiterntioiis: Nonh
iunlked with God. 10 Aizd Nonh begnf three soirs:
Shein, Hati?, arid Jnpheth. 11 Aiid the earth auns
covriipt before God, mil the earth tuns filled with
violence. 12 Arid God sniv the e&h, aiid, behold, it
iuns L W Y I I ~ ~ ; f o r nll flesh had corYiLPted their iuny
ii@oii t h e emth.))

488
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6 : 9 - 1 7
(1 ) Noah was a righteous man, that is, it was his dis-
position to do the will of God in all things (cf. Matt.
3 : 1J , John 4: 34) , Noah was “perfect”-iiot sinless, of
course, but committed to moral integrity in his dealings
with God. (“The just is t h e right in law, the perfect is
the tested in holiness,” Murphy) , “In his generations” :
probably not the offspring of a promiscuous union of the
godly with the ungodly, as were inaiiy of his contempo-
raries. Noah “walked with God,” as did Enoch (see
sufira). Hence, Noah “found favor in t h e eyes of
Jehovah.” (Note the A.V.--“grace” ; grace is commonly
defined as uniiierited favor: the favor in Noah’s case, how-
ever, was a recognition of his righteousness.) Noah was
a man of faith: given the Divine plans and specifications
for the ark, he obeyed in every detail and built it just as
God had told him to build it. H a d h e not doiie so, as we
shall see lateif, h e WOl4ld have destroyed its typical (hence,
testimoi~ial)significance. (Cf, Moses and the Taberiiacle:
Exo. 2 5 : 8 - 9 , also chs. 39, 40). Faith manifests itself in
implicit obedience: hence it is said t h a t “thus did Noah:
according to all that God commanded him, so did he”
(v. 2 2 ) ; aiid so by faith “he prepared an ark to the saving
of his house,” etc. (Heb. 11: 7 ) , Moreover, having “been
warned of God coiicerniiig things not seen as yet,” that
is, the certainty of impending Divine judgment, Noah
became Christ’s “preacher of righteousness” to the ungodly
antediluvian world ( 2 Pet. 2 : 5 ) I

3. The Ark
“13 Aiid God said i i i i t o N o a h , The eiid of all flesh
is coiiie befow i i i c ; for the eai-th is filled with violeiicc
f h i ~ i g htheiii; aiid, behold, 1 will destroy them with
the earth. 14 MaJte thee a i l a r k of gopher wood;
~ o o i i z sshalt thou iiialte i n the ark, niid shalt iiitch it
withiii aiid withoiit with pitch. 1 f Aiid this is how
thou shalt wake it: the leiigth of the a ~ threek hiiii-
dred cubits, t h e breadth of it f i f t y cubits, aiid the
489

. . .. ~ .. .
6:9-17 GENESIS
height o f it thirty cabbits. 16 A light shalt thou m a k e
t o t h e ark, a d to a czibit shalt thou finish it upward;
and t h e door of the ark shalt thou set iiz the side
thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt
thoa m a k e it. 17 Aizd I , behold, I do bring the flood
of waters zipoia the earth, t o destroy all flesh, wherein
is the breath of life, f r o m amder heaven; every thing
that is in the earth shall die.”
(1) Ark, from Hebrew word for “chest)’ or “box.”
Made of gopher wood (resinous trees, probably cypress, as
used in ancient shipbuilding) . Rooms: literally, ccnests,yy
metaphorically descriptive of the chambers of the ark.
Caulked with pitch (bitumen) , typical of Mesopotamian
work. Note the three stories (v. 1 6 ) : the text suggests
that the chambers (cabins or cells) were arranged accord-
ing to some definite plan, probably in rows on each side
of the ark, with a passageway through the middle (or
vice versa), and placed in tiers, one above the other. The
vessel was obviously built in the form of a flatboat,
designed, not for navagation, but solely for floating on
the surface of the water. “While the statement in v. 16
can be taken in the traditional sense as describing three
stories, it is also possible to understand it to indicate three
layers of logs laid cross-wise, a view which would accord
well with a construction of wood, reeds, and bitumen”
(NBD, s.u.)
(2) T h e Dimensions of the Ark are given as 300 x 70 x
30 cubits. The common cubit was about 18 inches in
length, the supposed average distance from the point of
the elbow to the tip of the middle finger (Deut. 3:11).
There was another cubit known, however, which was a
handbreadth longer than the common cubit. Petrie, the
noted Egyptologist, expresses the view that even the
common cubit measured 2 2 % inches. (See. Fl, Rehwinkel,
59). (See NBD, under “Weights and Measures”).
49 0
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:9-17
According to the lower standard, the ark would have
measured 4jO feet in length, 75 feet in width, and forty-
five feet in height. According to the higher figure ( 2 2
to 24 inches, based on t h e lilrelihood t h a t man before
the Flood was of larger stature than modern man, and
t h a t the length from his elbow to the end of his middle
finger was even longer than the suggested 2 2 % inches),
the ark would have been six hundred feet in length, one
hundred feet in width, and sixty feet in height. By way
of comparison, the battleship Owgoii, 348 feet long and
69 feet wide, was built in the same proportions as to length
and width as the ark. The famous Tjtaiiic was 825 f e e t
long and 93 feet wide with a displacemelit of 46,000 tons.
“Marine experts have estimated t h a t since the ark was
built with a f l a t bottom and there was no waste space on
t h e bow or stern, it being square 011 both ends and straight
up on its side, it would have had a displacement of about
43,000 tons, a displacement nearly equal to that of the
ill-fated Titaiiic” (F/., 60).
(3) Wiiidow and DOOY,v. 16. “A light shalt thou make
to the ark” (note marginal rendering, ~ o o f ) . “To a cubit
shalt thou finish i t upward” (marginal, f ~ o mabove).
Rotherham: “A place for light shalt thou make for the
ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upwards,” etc.
The new American translation gives it: “You are to make
a roof for the ark, finishing it off a t t h e top t o the width
of a cubit.” The Hebrew word here indicates clearly a
space for light, or a space by which the light could be
admitted into the vessel, “The door of the ark shalt thou
set in the side thereof,” etc. Rotherham: “The opening of
the ark in t h e side thereof shalt thou put.” Laiige thinks
that each f l a t or story had an entrance or door in t h e side.
(4) Note the construction: v. 17--“And I, behold, I
do bring,” etc.; an emphatic declaration t h a t t h e impend-
ing judgment was truly a Divine visitation, not simply a
natural occurrence.
49 1
6:18-22 GENESIS
4. T h e Noahic Covenavtt
“ 1 8 B u t I will establish m y coveiznnt with thee;
and thou shalt come into the ark, thoaL, and t h y soias,
and t h y w i f e , and thy sons’ wives with thee. 19 And
o f every living thing o f d l flesh, t w o of every sort
shalt thou britag iMto the ark, t o keep them alive with
thee; they shall be male a i d female. 20 Of f h e birds
after their kind, and of cattle after their Rind, of
every creeping tbiflg of the ground after its kind,
t w o of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep t h e m
alive. 21 Aid take thou u n t o thee of dl food that
is enten, atad gather it to thee; and it shall be for
food f o r thee, a d foY them. 22 Thus did Noah;
nccording to all that God commanded him,so did he.”
(1) “My covenant,” that is, the already well known
covenaiit which I have made with man. “The word m y
points to its original establishment with Adam; my
primeval covenant, which I am resolved not to abandon”
(Murphy). “Will I establish,” that is, despite the fact
that Adam failed me, I will maintain and execute my
covenant of life with the generic seed of the woman,
and in a special sense with the Eternal Seed, the Logos,
who from the foundation of the world voluntarily pur-
poses to effect the Plan of Redemption for all who accept
the Covering for sin which H e shall provide. A covenant
in Scripture, in the fullest sense of the term, is a solemn
compact (contract) , between two parties in which each
is bound to perform his part. “Hence, a covenant implies
the moral faculty; and wherever the moral faculty exists,
there must be a covenant. Consequently, between God
and man there was of necessity a covenant from the very
beginning, though the name do not appear. At first it
was a covenant of works, in regard to man; but now that
works have failed, it can only be a covenant of grace to
the penitent sinner” (Murphy, MG, 1 8 8 ) . The substance
of the Noahic covenant was the agreement with respect
492
 THE WORLD BEFORE TIlE FLOOD 6:18-22
to Noah and liis household ; the remaining verses simply
state the arraiigeinents with regard t o tlie subliuinan orders.
The directions with reference to the ark, as given by
God to Noah, embraced four particulars: (1) the Divine
intention to destroy the human species, ( 2 ) tlie plans and
specifications for tlic ark, ( 3 ) the aiinou~ice~~ient of tlie
impending dooin in tlie form of a catastrophic flood, and
(4) t h e arrangements for the preservation of Noah and
the members of his family, and certain specified liiiids of
animals. Other problems t h a t arise in connection with
the Genesis account of the Deluge will be treated here in
subsequent sections. It will be noted that tlie title of
this Part is “The World Before t h e Flood.” W e have
dealt primarily, in this section, with tlie moral world, the
world of man, liis duties and privileges; in the following
sections we shall deal with tlie problems also of tlie
physical or geographical world.
>; :;- F: >: >;

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

Dors Histoy31 M a k c Sriisc.?
This question is suggested by tlie Divine declaration,
Gen. 6 : 3 , “My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever.”
What has history to say with reference to this pronounce-
ment?
It is interesting to note t h a t tlie three over-all “pliiloso-
yhies” of history originated with tlie three great Greek
historians.
Herodotus (5th century B.C.) was tlic first to give
us what may rightly be called the ethical interpretation:
namely, that history is largely tlie record of the work of
thc goddess Nemesis, Retributive Justice, who iiievitably
interferes in human affairs to overthrow inordinate human
pride, ambitioii and insolence. This view is represented
today, in broad outline, by t h e thought of such ineii as
Berdyaev, Soroltin, Scliweitzer, and Toynbee. Toynbee’s
49 3
 6 :18-22 GENESIS
elaborately-worked-out theory is that of challenge-and-
response. According to his view, modern man faces three
primary challenges: that of setting up a constitutional
system of co-operative world government (politically) ;
that of formulating a workable compromise between free
enterprise and socialistic endeavor, including peace in labor-
industry relations; and that of putting the secular super-
structure back on a religious foundation, that in which
the dignity and worth of the person is made the supreme
ethical norm. (This last-named, says Toynbee, is the most
important of all). His over-all thesis is that our Western
culture will survive only if it responds in a positive way
to these basic needs or challenges.
Thucydides (c. 471 -400 B.C.) emphasized the strictly
seczhristic interpretation of history: namely, that the
events of history are brought about by purely secular
(chiefly economic) causes. This view is echoed in modern
times, first by Machiavelli, and later by Marx and Lenin
with their theory of economic determinism and accompany-
ing substitution of expediency for morality.
Polybius (c. 205-c. 125 B.C.) gives us the fatalistic
view, namely, that all events of history are predetermined
by a Sovereign Power, variously named Fate, Fortune,
Destiny, etc. He gives us-accurately-the history of the
Roman republic; his thesis is that Fortune foreordained
that Rome should become the mistress of the world. (Of
. course, he died, long before the Roman Republic degener-
ated into the Empire of the Caesars.) Polybius was a Stoic,
and this was the Stoic philosophy. This view is repre-
sented in our day, in a somewhat different form of course,
by Oswald Spengler, in his massive work, The Decline of
the West. According to Spengler, every culture inevitably
passes through its four seasons-spring, summer, fall, and
winter-the last-named being the period of decay ending
in death, the period that should be properly designated
494
 THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD 6:18-22
t h a t o i “civilization.” Spengler was a pessimist: there is
no escape from this remorcelecs cycle, according to his view.
What does the Bible have t o say on this subject? It
gives us clearly the providential interpretation (rather,
revelation) , specifically in Jeremiah 18 : 5 -10. This may be
stated in brief as follows: ( 1 ) God rules His world, both
physical and moral, including t h e march of human events;
(b) within the framework of His Providence, however,
both individuals and nations are left relatively free to work
out their own history and destiny (that is, God rules the
world, but He does not rule it by force) : (c) nations fall
when they ignore and violate the moral law on such a
scale that they make themselves vessels fit only for destruc-
tion; t h a t is to say, the stability and premanence of the
nation (or state) is dependent on t h e ethical quality of
the national life. Nations are seldom destroyed from the
outside: rather, they go down from rot on t h e inside. ( d )
God will never permit any human tryant to seize sover-
eignty over the whole earth, for t h e simple reason that
universal sovereignty is Divinely reserved for the King of
kings and Lord of lords. (Cf. Phil. 2:7-11, Eph. 1:19-23,
1 Cor. 15:20-28, Rev. 1 9 : l l - 1 6 ) . We must never forget
t h a t just as sjii was i i o t iiwvitable in the beginning, so
I I ~ O Pipogwss
I ~ of a n y people 01’ state is iiot inevitable.
Individuals and nations grow in righteousness only as they
will to do so. In the very nature of the case neither
righteousness nor holiness can be forced upon an individual
or a people. However, a nation is not destroyed until its
destruction has become a moral necessity. This is all stated
explicitly in Jer. 18:5-10, (Note the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah, Gen. 18:20-33, 19:23-28. Note also the case
of Abraham, who himself never owned a foot of t h e Land
which God had promised to him and his seed, except the
small plot which he purchased for a burial ground. The
fulfilment of the promise was delayed several generations-
49 5
6:18-22 GENESIS
to the time of the Conquest under Joshua-simply because
in the interim the iniquity of the Canaanites had not
reached fullness: cf, Gen. 15:12-16, Lev. 18:24-28).
May we cry out, then, as Americans, in the words of
Kipling’s “Recessional”-
“The tumult and the shouting dies;
The Captains and the Kings depart;
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart-
Lord God of hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget-lest we forget!”

REVIEW QUESTIONS O N PART TWENTY

I . Explain the theory of the origin of the so-called heroes
and demigods of prehistoric times.
2. Show why the theory that the “sons of God” originated
in the intermarriage of angels and mortal women is
unscrip t u r d
3. List the poctic references, in Scripture, to angels as
“sons of God.”
4. What does the phrase, “sons of God,” generally signify
in Scripture?
5 . Are angels Scripturally represented as having sex dis-
tinctions? Cite Scripture for your answer.
6. Explain the sentence, “My Spirit shall not strive with
man for ever.”
7. Explain the clause, “for that he also is flesh.”
8. Show why the 120-year period ordained by God could
not have indicated the term of individual human life.
9. Explain what this time-period of 120 years obviously
meant. How was it a manifestation of Divine grace?
49 6
 T H E WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD
10. Explain how this passage talres on t h e character of a
predic tion.
11. What was Aristotle’s estimate of m a n ? How does it
agree with t h e clause, “for t h a t he also is flesh”?
12. Is there any necessary connection between the Nephilim
of Nuiiibers 13:33 and those of Gen. G:4? Explain.
13. Could the Nephilim have been of a pre-Adamic stock?
Explain.
14. State Lange’s explanation of t h e Nephilim, and t h a t
of Cornfeld also.
15. How has the Spirit of God uniformly striven with
men?
16. How, and through whom, did t h e Spirit of God strive
with tlie ungodly antediluvian people?
17. Explain Heb. 11:7, 2 Pet. 2 : j , 1 Pet. 3:18-22,
1 8 , Explain the terms “aiitliropo~norphic” and “anthro-
popathic.”
19. Explain what is meant by Yahweh’s “repentaiice” in
Gen. G:G-7.
20. Explain how this is t o be reconciled with His immu-
tability.
21. In what sense are we to understand that Noah was
(1
righteous,” and t h a t h e was “perfect in his genera-
tions” ?
22. What would have been the consequence if Noah had
not complied fully with God’s ordiiiations regarding
the ark? What would have been tlie “testimonial”
consequence ?
23. Explain the following terms in reference to the ark:
cc
rooms,” “gopher wood,” “pitch,” “three stories,”
“window,” and “door.”
497
 GENESIS
24. State the probable dimensions of the ark as determined
by the different meanings of the word “cubit.”
25. What was the ark as to its general appearance and
design?
2 6 . What is a covenant? Explain what is meant by the
Noahic Covenant.
27. List the four particulars included in God’s directions
with reference to the ark.
2 8 . Distinguish between what is meant by the moral world
and the geographical world in the study of the Deluge.
2 9 . State the three over-all ccphilosophies’yof history, and
name the early and modern proponents of each.
30. Outline clearly the Biblical revelation of the meaning
of history.

49 8
 PART TWENTY-ONE:
THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
(Gen. 7:l-24)
1. T h e Embarkation (Geii. 7: 1-24) . The Biblical Ac-
cou1zt.
“ 1 Aizd Jehovah said i m t o Noah, Come thou and all t h y
house into the ark; f o r thee have I seen righteous before
m,e iiz this gen’eratioiz. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt
take to thee seven and seven, the nzale and his female;
and of the beasts that are not cleair t w o , the male and his
female: of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven.,
male and female, to keep seed alive upoia the face of all
the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain
upon the earth f o r t y days aiqd f o r t y iipights; an,d every
living thing that I h m e made will I destroy f r o m o f f
the face of the ground. A n d NoaJg did accordiq u n t o
all that Jehovah commanded him.
“6 Aizd N o a h was six hundred years old w h e n the flood
of waters was u p o n the earth. 7 A n d N o a h welit ill., and
his sons, aid his wife, and his s o d wives with him, i n t o
the ark, because of the waters of the flooid. 8 O f clean
beasts, m d of beasts that are n o t clean, and of birds, and of
everything that creep& upon the ground, 9 there we,nt
in, two and t w o uizto N o a h into the ark, male and female,
as G o d conznzaizded Noah. 10 A i i d it came to pass after
the seven days, that the waters of t h e flood were u p o n the
earth. I 1 I n the six hundredth year of Noab’s life, in, the
second month, 01% the seventeeizth day of the month, on
the same day were all the fouii.tains o f the great de@
broken up, the windows of hsaveir, were ope?i,ed. 12
And the rain was upo?~.the earth f o r t y days afid f o r t y
nights.
“13 In the selfsame day entered N o a h , and Shew,, an.d
H a m , and Japheth, the som of N o a h , and Noah’s wife,
and the three wives of his soiis with them, into the ark;
14 they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle
499
 GENESIS
a f t e r their kiizd, and every creeping thing that creepetb
upon the earth after its kind, and every bird after its
kiiad, every bird of every sort. 15 A n d they w e n t in unto
N o a h into t h e ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is
the breath of life. 16 A n d they that w e n t in, w e n t in
male and female o f all flesh, us God commanded him:
and Jehovah shut him in. 17 A n d the flood was forty
days u p o n t h e earth; and the waters increased, and bare
up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 1 8 A n d
t h e waters prevailed mad increased greatly u p o n t h e earth;
and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 A n d
the waters prevailed exceedingly u p o n the earth; and all
the high mountains that were under the whole heaven
wewe covered. 20 F i f t y cubits upward did t h e wafers pre-
m i l ; and t h e mountains were couered. 21 A n d all flesh
died that m o v e d upon the earth, both. birds, and cattle,
and beasts, a n d every creeping thing that creepetb upon
t h e earth, and every m a n : 22 all in whose nostrils was
t h e breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry
land, died. 23 A n d every living thing was destroyed that
was u p o n t h e face of the groztnd, both mm, and cattle,
and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they
were destroyed f r m the earth:. and N o a h omly was l e f t ,
and they t h ~ weret with him in the ark. 24 A n d the waters
prevailed upon the earth a hundred and f i f t y dgys.”
2. T h e Mord World Under the Flood. (1) By “moral
world” we mean the totality of “moral” beings, that is,
creatures constitutionally endowed with intelligence and
free will, and hence made responsible to the Creator for
their acts; in a word, all creatures who can properly be
designated persons. In view of their distinct persoma1 en-
dowments they are said in Scripture to have been created
in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This world of
persons under the Flood was made up of just two classes:
the same two classes that have always made up human-
kind, namely, those who have, and those who have not,
so0
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
conformed their lives to the Will of God, the Author of
all moral and spiritual law. (Cf. Matt. 7:24-27, 7:13-14,
21:31-46; John 5:28-29; Rom, 2:4-11; Rev. 2O:ll-15,
22:12-11). Similarly, the antediluvian moral world was
made up of those who refused t o heed the warnings of
God about the impending doom (the world of the un-
godly), and those who, by faith, took God a t His Word
and conformed to His plan for their deliverance: in sum,
those outside the ark and those inside the ark of safety.
( 2 ) The condition that necessitated the Flood was, as
noted heretofore, the universal wickedness brought about
by the intermarriage of pious Sethites and the irreligious
Cainites. This condition became so intolerable t h a t “it
repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth,
and it grieved him at his heart.” “And Jehovah said, I
will destroy man whom I have created from the face of
the ground” ( 6 : 6 - 7 ) . (Cf. such passages as Num. 23 :19,
1 Sam. 15:29, Ezek. 24:14, Mal. 3:6, Jas. 1 : 1 7 ) . Haley
ADB, 63-68): “God has promised blessings to the righteous
and threatened the wicked with punishment. Suppose a
righteous man should turn and become wicked. H e is
no longer the man whom God promised to bless. H e
occupies a different relation toward God. The promise
was made to an entirely different character. . . . His
attitude toward sin and sinners, on the one hand, and
toward goodness and good on the other, is the same yester-
day, today, and forever. It is precisely because God is
immutable, that his relation to men, and his treatment of
them vary with the changes in their character and conduct.
In a word, he changes not because he i s iinchangeable. , . .
To sum up, if ?naif changes, the very inimutabilify of
God’s character requires that his feelings should change
toward the changed maif.” (SIB, I, 112, n.): “God’s
repeiitaiice denotes not any change of his purpose or will
within himself. In this respect he is unchangeable, and
cannot repent. . . . But it denotes the change of his
501
 GENESIS
providence correspondent with his fixed purpose. It is a
word suited t o our capacity; and here it denotes God’s
detestation of sin, and his fixed resolution to punish it,
after man had made himself quite another thing than
God had made him a t first.” (Cf. 1 Sam. 15:11, Ps.
106:45, Deut. 32:36, Hos. 11:8, Jer. 18:5-12). ( 3 ) Noah,
on the other hand, was “a righteous man, and perfect in
his generations.” Two distinct Hebrew words are trans-
lated “generations” here ( 6 : 9 ) . The first signifies “fam-
ilies” or ‘‘genealogies.’’ The second signifies “the period
of a man’s life.” Noah was righteous: it was his disposi-
tion to do the Will of God. He was perfect, that is,
upright and sincere, a man of integrity. H e was perfect
in comparison with those of his period or age. (Cf. Luke
1:6, 2 Cor. l : l 2 , Phil. 2:15, 1 Pet. 2:15.) “Noah was
perfect in his generatioin, amidst men extremely wicked,
and notwithstanding their evil counsels, examples, and
persecutions.” His character is proved by the fact that
he persisted through one hundred and twenty years plead-
ing-all in vain-with those of his time, to repent and
reform their lives in obedience to God’s warning. What
greater proof of a man’s piety could be desired? What a
contrast to the enormous impiety of the multitudes revel-
ing unrestrained in lust and violence, sinning against God
openly and presumptuously, without any fear of Him,
any respect for His law, in very defiance of His justice!
3 . The Physical World Under the Flood. (1) By the
physical world we have reference here to the physio-
graphical aspects of the planet Earth. Thus it becomes
apparent a t once that any treatment of this subject neces-
sarily involves the problem of the extent of the Flood
which is described in the seventh chapter of Genesis. That
is to say, was the Genesis Flood universal? Or was it
more or less localized in the region anciently regarded as
the “world,” o r more especially the region known today as
the Near East. To try to discuss this problem in its various
5 02
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
ramifications-Biblical, geological, palentological, physio-
chemical, etc.-would require the writing of a book within
a book, so to speak, a task for which we have neither
time nor space available, in t h e preparation of the present
text. We shall be content, theref ore, with presenting t h e
problem in its broad outlines and giving the reader the
titles of the books published in recent years in which the
different views are set forth. (These titles are named
in the List of Specific Abbvrviations a t the forefront of
this volume.)
( 2 ) In this connection, t h e first problem we encounter
is one of translation. The Hebrew erets as used in Genesis
and generally throughout t h e Old Testament, translated
consistently as “earth” in our English Bibles, is also the
term used repeatedly for “land” or “country.” (E.g.,
Gen. 13 : lO--“the land of Egypt”; 1 3 : 12--“the land of
Canaan,” etc.). (There is another word, febel, which is
used in the later Old Testament writings, which designates
the habitable earth or the world as a whole; however, this
word does not occur in the entire Pentateuch. Again, the
word adamu/g, translated ‘‘ground,” occurs in Gen, 7:2 3,
8:8, 8:13, 8:21 (cf. with its use in Gen. 3:17), and has
reference strictly to the surface (productive) soil of the
same area t h a t is designated e w f s in other verses.) But
it is esets alone, uniformly translated “earth,” which is
used throughout the Narrative of the Flood, and signifi-
cantly in those very passages which convey the connota-
tion of universality, and which, as stated above, could be
just as correctly and meaningfully rendered “land” wher-
ever it occurs (e.g., Gen. 6:17c could be as correctly
translated, “everything that is i n the h d shall die”),
O n the other hand, the phrase, “under t h e whole heaven,”
as used in 7:19, causes difficulty: it cannot be easily ex-
plained as indicating a geographical regiou only. For this
reason, such well-known Bible exegetes as Delitzsch in the
last century (BCOTP) and in recent times Leupold (EG),
503
 GENESIS
and others, have not conceded the possibility of translating
the seventh chapter of Genesis as describing a mere local-
ized flood.
( 3 ) Was the Flood universal or local? Jauncey writes
(SRG, 7 6 ) : “Some discussion has gone on as to whether
the Flood was a local flood or whether over the whole
complete earth. The reason for the discussion is that the
word used, translated “earth” in Genesis 7:4 also means
“land.” Therefore, an equally good translation would
make it appear that the whole land or area of Mesopotamia
was inundated rather than the whole earth as we know it
now, Against this, though, is the fact that there are
memories of the Flood all over the world. Of course,
some of these could have come through hearsay. Again,
we do not know.” Dean (OBH, 16) : “It rained for forty
days. The waters continued to rise for one hundred and
fifty days, and to subside for two hundred and twenty-five
days. It was either universal, or what is more probable,
occurred early in the history of the race, before they had
spread widely. Either view would account for the univer-
sal tradition.” Dummelow (CHB) : “The question has
been discussed whether the Flood was limited in its extent
to the early home of man, and the birthplace of the tradi-
tion, viz., Central Asia, or whether it was world-wide.
Various scientific objections to a universal immersion of
the earth have been brought forward, such as its inconsist-
ency with the existing distribution of animals, the im-
possibility of the different species of animals finding
accomodation i n the ark, the want of sufficient moisture
in our world, either in the form of vapor or of water,
to cover the highest mountains, and the disturbance of
the solar system which would have been caused by the
sudden creation of the amount required. In consideration
of these objections, we must remember that the impression
of a general divine judgment would be quite adequately
produced by the submergence of the comparatively small
5 04
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
district inhabited a t the time by man; also, t h a t the
preservation of the record could only be due to the sur-
vivors, whose ideas of the extent of the catastrophe were
drawn from their personal experiences, and the limited
geographical knowledge of the time.” (It should be noted
that this writer, as do most of those who reject the idea of
a universal deluge, ignores altogether the possibility of a
Spirit-inspired revelation) . Ramm (CVSS, 244-246)
holds that insurmountable problems are raised by the view
that the Deluge was universal in extent, such as, especially,
the following: 1. According to best estimates, to cover
the highest known mountains, such as t h e Himalayas, eight
times more water than our earth now possesses would be
required. 2. The withdrawal of such a huge volume of
water would constitute and almost insuperable problem,
in the fact t h a t there would be no place or places to which
i t could drain off: the atmosphere could not store that
much water in evaporated form, and there is no evidence
that underground cavities exist capable of holding more
than a fraction of the additional volume of water. 3 .
Hardly any forms of plant life could have survived sub-
mersion under salt water for any length of time. More-
over, the mingling of ocean water with rain water must
have produced a lethal saline concentration, in which
nearly all marine life surely would have perished through
inability to withstand the tremendous pressures created.
And in particular how could those species of marine life
which migrate far from their feeding grounds have sur-
vived such migrations? Moreover, fresh water fish must
have perished as well, even though the salinity might have
been sufficient to support salt water fish. 4. Finally, says
Ramm, certain areas of the earth’s surface show no definite
evidence whatever of a general submersion. He cites, for
example, reports of ashes in Auvergne, France, produced
by volcanoes thousands of years older than the Flood
which show no evidence of disturbance by flood waters.
505

.
 GENESIS
Gleason reviews these arguments as follows (SOTI, 195-
196): “Perhaps difficulties 1 and 3 can be accounted for
by special creative or recreative acts of God. (But why
then the concern for the preservation of the land animals
in the ark, if re-creation was so readily available?) But
2 would seem to call for a good deal of uncreation or
complete annihilation of aqueous matter-which appears
highly improbable. Difficulty 4 seems to defy explana-
tion, unless the volcanoes involved were really of post-
Noahic origin, and the criteria for dating them earlier turn
out to be erroneous. Or else perhaps the scoria and ashes
may not have been so easily disturbed by water action as
the argument assumes. It cannot be maintained, however,
that even a local flood will solve all these scientific diffi-
culties. Genesis 7:19 states most explicitly that all the
water level rose well above ’all the high mountains that
were under the whole heaven.’ Assuming that the moun-
tains involved were merely local (a difficult interpretation
to make out from the text), at the very least the peaks of
Mount Ararat itself were covered, since the ark came to
rest where the higher peak (over 17,000 feet high) would
be visible. T h e unavoidable inference would be that the
water level rose more than 17,000 feet above the present
sea level. This creates difficulties almost as grave for
the local flood theory as those which that theory is supposed
to avoid. H o w could the level have been that high at
Ararat without being the same ,height over the rest of
the world? Only during a very temporary surge, such
as that of a tidal wave, can water fail to seek its own
level. To suppose a 17,000-foot level in Armenia simul-
taneous with a n uninundated Auvergne in France would
be to propound a more incredible miracle than anything
implied by the traditional understanding of a universal
flood. The only possible solution, apparently, would be
found in the supposition that the height of Ararat was
much lower than a t present. It is very difficult to date
506
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
reliably a major upward thrust of the mountain-malting
variety, and hence it is quite possible that even in the few
millenia which have followed the Flood the great mountain
ranges have attained far higher elevation than they did
before Noah’s time, But such a supposition would be
applicable not only to the Ararat range but also to the
Himalayas and the Cordilleras as well, and it would allev-
iate somewhat the problem of water supply for a universal
flood.”
(4) T. C. Mitchell (NBD, 427-428) summarizes as
follows: “That everything ( 6 : 17) , including man (6:7,
7:21) and beast (6:7, 1 3 , 17; 1:21, 2 2 ) , was t o be blotted
out by the Flood is clearly stated, but it can be argued
that these categories are qualified by the statements of
locality: upon the earth (erefs: 6 : 1 7 ; 7:17, 2 3 ) ; under
heaven (sbumayim, 6:17, 7 : 1 9 ) ; and upon the ground
(adam&: 7:4, 2 3 ) . Erets can mean ‘land’ (e.g. Gn.
IO: l o ) , shawzayinz can mean ‘sky,’ or the visible part of
heaven within the horizon (e.g., 1 Ki. 18:45), and the
extent of nda~nab would be determined by these other
two words; thus it is possible that a flood of unexampled
severity might meet these conditions without covering
the entire surface of the globe. .The argument that such
a flood would make the preservation of animals unneces-
sary might be countered with the suggestion that if a
whole environmental zone with its own individual fauna
were involved, such a measure would be necessary. The
statement that all the high mountains (har) under the
whole heaven were covered (7:19, 2 0 ) and that near the
end of the Flood they began to be seen ( 8 : 5 ) is inter-
preted in this scheme as a phenomenon due to the cloud
and mist that must have accompanied the cataclysm,
This interpretation favors a limited Flood, but the text is
also capable of bearing the interpretation of a universal
Flood, and dogmatism is not reasonable, either way. The
5 07
 GENESIS
theological teaching of the Bible has traditionally been
interpreted i n the sense that all men except Noah and his
family were destroyed.”
( 5 ) R. Milligan (RR, 196-197) contends for the uni-
versality of the Flood. He writes: “The language of
Moses, taken literally, proves, beyond all doubt, that the
deluge was universal. (See Genesis 7:19-23 and 9:8-17).
And so, also, do the words of Peter, in the third chapter
of his second Epistle. This much is conceded by all
parties. And, as it is a fundamental rule of interpretation
that ‘all words must be taken in their literal sense unless
it can be shown, for reasons clear and satisfactory, that
they should be construed figuratively,’ the presumption
is in favor of the old hypothesis, that the deluge was
universal, and the burden of proof falls on those who
would limit it to a portion of the earth’s surface.” To
the above quotations, pro and con, 1 should call attention
to certain scientific views bearing on the subject. Geolo-
gists tell us that they have the unequivocal testimony of
the rocks that many of the high mountains of Eurasia and
the Americas were, a t a comparatively recent period, cov-
ered with water to such a depth that immense iceburgs
loaded with huge masses of granite, gneiss, sand, etc., were
freighted over their summits and carried from the Polar
regions toward the equator. They tell us that the rocky
deposits found in our Central States came to be where
they are in the following manner: that, during the succes-
sive periods of thawing and freezing in the Arctic regions,
they were detached from mountain ranges; and that, at
some time in the past, a vast inundation of water heaved
them up, carried them across the continent, and deposited
them where they are today. Again we quote Milligan:
“It seems more reasonable to conclude, in the light of
both Natural Science and Sacred Hermeneutics, that the
Noachic deluge was universal; as the final conflagration
will also be universal. But, which ever mode of interpreta-
508
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
tion is adopted, the student of the Bible may rest assured
that there is here no more conflict between Natural Science
and the Bible than there is between Natural Science and
the testimony of every formation of the pre-Adamic earth.”
( 6 ) Again, the question has been raised as to whether
in fact the Flood brought about t h e destruction of the
whole human race, It has been pointed out t h a t the lists
of descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, as given us
in the tenth chapter of Genesis do not permit any easy
identification of these ethnic groups with the peoples
inhabiting the remote reaches of Africa, Far East Asia,
Australia, and the Americas; especially is this said to be
true of Australia, the land area in which such strangely
unique human and subhuman species still survive that
obviously are far removed, supposedly as the consequence
of long separation from the Eurasian continent, from any
possibility of identification with the human and subhuman
specimens who became passengers in Noah’s ark. Again,
as suggested heretofore, the possibility cannot be ruled out
arbitrarily that we have in the Biblical story of Adam and
Eve and their offspring the account of the real origin of
izatural ?izan by special Divine act (that is man created
in God’s image for the actualization of His Eternal Pur-
pose) ; moreover, that this does not necessarily exclude the
concomitant existence of humanoidal (“near-human”)
species that have long been lost in the oblivion of passing
time and change. Let it be stated here positively, that no
real reason can be put forward for questioning the possible
-even probable-biological modification and variation
(“evolution”) of species regressively as well as progres-
sively, whatever humanoidaI or genuinely human speci-
mens may have been involved. Archer (SOTI, 197-198) :
“Perhaps, then, these scholars suggest, we are to see in the
family of Noah only the ancestors of the nations more
immediately surrounding the Holy Land, that is, the
peoples of the Near and Middle East, and of the Mediter-
509
 GENESIS
ranean coastlands.” H e then goes on to point u p “three
formidable difficulties, in the light of Biblical evidence,”
inherent in the notion of a more or less localized Flood,
as follows: 1 . The Divine purpose, as indicated in the
Flood narrative, was to destroy the entire human race
(Gen. 6:7, 17). “Even if we hold in abeyance the admis-
sibility of translating erets here as ‘land’ rather than
‘earth,’ it seems quite evident that a total destruction of
the human race was involved.” 2. It is unquestionably
evident in the Genesis account that it was man’s wicked-
ness uiziversally that brought on the Divine judgment in
the form of the Deluge. Cf. Gen. 6:5, 6:11. “It hardly
seems likely that the ancestors of the Australians and Far
Eastern peoples presented such a stark contrast in morals
to the Middle Eastern nations that God saw fit to exempt
them from the judgment of the Flood. The Scripture
includes all mankind in the verdict of guilty (e.g,, Rom.
3:19: . .. ‘that every mouth may be stopped, and all
the world may be guilty [RSV, ‘accountable’] before
God’). This is a basic premise of the New Testament
gospel. No ground for differentiating between the na-
tions closer to Palestine and those more remote from it
can be possibly made out.” 3. “The unequivocal corrob-
oration of the New Testament t h a t the destruction of the
human race a t the time of the Flood was total and uni-
versal.” Cf. 2 Pet. 3:6, 2 : 5 ; and especially the words
of Jesus, Matt. 24:38, 39--“knew not until the flood
came, and took them all away.” “While the word ‘all’
may not always be used in a completely universal sense
in Scripture, it is consistently used to apply to the whole
number of individuals involved in the situation under
discussion. Certainly all men since Adam have been
sinners; therefore even in Noah’s day all must have been
included in the destruction of the great Deluge.” 4. The
universality of the traditions (oral and written) of the
Flood which have long persisted among the most widely
510
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
distributed geographically and most culturally diverse peo-
ples of earth. (This will be treated infra.) Cf. agaiii
Matt. 24:37-39, Luke 17:26, 27: the wrifer of the j r e s e f i f
text wants it to be clearly uiiderstood thai h e bas iio in-
tention, iiow or ever, of eiiieriiig into a coiitrouersy with
the Lord Jesus Christ 011 aiiy sihject whatsoever, the Otze
before whose mind ihe visioii of eteniity as well as of
time (as defiiied by Plafo, “the nioving image of eternity”)
was ever-preseszt.
(7) Dr. Henry M. Morris, distinguished professor of
engineering science, states what he calls “very cogent rea-
sons” for accepting the Scripture account of the Flood as
describing a universal catacylsm, as follows (SBS, 40-42) :
1. “The expressions of universality in the account (Genesis
6-9) are not confined to one or two verses, but are re-
peated in various ways more than a score of times, the
writer apparently guarding by every means possible against
this very theory that the Flood might only be a limited
inundation.” 2. “There are numerous references to the
Flood in later parts of Scripture, all plainly indicating
that the writers regarded the account in worldwide terms.
The Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 24:37-39, Luke 17:26, 27)
makes the worldwide judgment of the Deluge to be a type
of His own return in judgment on the present world.” 3.
“The record makes it plain that the waters overtopped
the mountains which even in the vicinity of the Tigris-
Euphrates region reach great heights. The mountains of
Ararat contain pealcs over fifteen thousand feet high.
The waters ‘prevailed upon the earth’ a t least 1 5 0 days, so
t h a t waters which covered mountains in one region of
the world must necessarily have attained to similar eleva-
tions in all other parts of the world.’’ 4. “The primary
purpose of the Flood was to ‘destroy all flesh’ and especially
to destroy man from the earth. During the years before
the Flood (perhaps 1600), conditions were evidently favor-
able to abundant procreation. The idea t h a t man could
511
 GENESIS
only have spread over a small region during this period is
quite unreasonable and certainly could not be said to
harmonize with anthropology. Consequently, the geo-
graphical extent of the Flood would have t o be world-
wide.” 5 . “The purpose of the Ark was to ‘keep seed
alive upon the face of all the earth,’ but this purpose
was entirely superficial and unreasonable if the only life
that was destroyed was within a certain limited area. The
Ark had a carrying capacity at least equal to that of SO0
ordinary cattle cars, far too large for the needs of merely
a small region.” 6 . “Most important, the entire Biblical
record of the Flood becomes almost ridiculous if it is
conceived in terms of a local flood. The whole procedure
of constructing a great boat, involving a tremendous
amount of work, can hardly be described as anything but
utterly foolish and unnecessary. H o w much more sensible
it would have been for God merely to have warned Noah
of the coming destruction, so that he could have moved
to another region to which the Flood would not reach.
The great numbers of animals of all kinds, and certainly
the birds (which migrate vast distances), could easily
have moved out also, without having to be stored and
tended for a year in the Ark. The entire story thus be-
comes little more than nonsense if it is taken as a mere
local flood in Mesopotamia.”
( 8 ) Under the caption of “geological implications” of
the Narration of the Flood, Dr. Morris has added other
telling points, as the following: 1. “There were great
valcanic and tectonic disturbances, and great quantities of
juvenile water (i.e., water which emerged for the first
time from the earth’s crust to become part of the earth’s
surface waters) poured out on the earth. This is the
reasonable implication of statements made concerning the
breaking up of the fountains of the great deep (Gen.
7 :11, 8 - 2 ) .” 2. “Antediluvian meterological conditions
Y 12
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
were quite different in character from those now pre-
vailing. Otherwise, it would have been quite impossible
for rain to have fallen continuously for forty days and
forty nights all around the world, especially in such tor-
rential fashion that it was described as the ‘flood-gates’
(A.V. ‘windows’) of Heaven being opened. The tre-
inendous amounts of water implied are not possible under
present atmospheric conditions,” etc. 3. “The great vol-
umes of water which were thus turned loose on the earth,
both from ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and from t h e
‘flood-gates of heaven, must, of absolute necessity, have
accomplished a vast amount of geologic work in relatively
short period. The Bible also speaks of the waters ‘going
and returning continually’ (Genesis 8 :3 ) , then of ‘the
mountains rising and the valleys sinliing, with the waters
hasting away’ (Psa. 104:6-9, A.S.V.), and of the waters
overturning the earth’ (Job 12: 1 5 ) , Erosion and resedi-
mentation must have taken place on a gigantic scale.
Previous isostatic adjustments, of whatever sort they were.
must have been entirely unbalanced by the great complex
of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces unleashed in t h e
floodwaters, resulting very likely in great telluric move-
ments. Associated with the volcanic phenomena and the
great rains must also have been tremendous tidal effects,
windstorms, and a great complexity of currents, cross-
currents, whirlpools, and other hydraulic phenomena.
After the flood-gates were restrained, and the fountains of
the deep stopped, for a long time much more geologic
work must have been accomplished a t the masses of water
were settling into new basins and the earth was adjusting
itself to new physiographic and hydrologic balances.” 4.
“Since t h e Flood was said to have killed ‘every living sub-
stance upon the face of the ground,’ and in view of the
great masses of sediment being moved back and forth and
finally deposited by the flood-waters, it would be expected
that gerat numbers of plants and animals would be buried
713
 GENESIS
by the sediments, under conditions eminently favorable to
preservation and fossilization. Conditions for extensive
fossil production could never have been so favorable as
during the Deluge. Since the Deluge was worldwide and
recent, this can only mean that many, probably most, of
the fossils that are now found in earth’s sedimentary rock
beds were entombed there during the Flood.” j. “Finally,
it may very fairly be inferred from the record that it
would now be impossible to discern geologically much of
the earth’s history prior to the Flood, at least on the
assumption of continuity with present conditions. What-
ever geologic deposits may have existed before the Flood
must have been almost completely eroded, reworked, and
redeposited during the Flood, perhaps several times. Such
geologic time-clocks as we may be able to use to date
events subsequent to the Flood cannot therefore legitimately
be used to extend chronologies into antediluvian time.
The basic premise of all such chronometers is uniformity
and, if the Flood record be true, the premise of uniformity
is, a t that point a t least, false.”
Unif ormitariniiisin might be used legitimately to des-
cribe rhaiiges j i i the periwaneutly fashioned earth, but the
theory simply does riot lend itself t o an adequate descrip-
fioii of the origiri o f earth m a separate planet. There
are iHdeed maiiy astspecty of geology, as earth-science, in
the rxplaiiation of which catastrophism is far more felici-
toils than ziniforinitarianism. As Dr. Morris concludes
(pp. 43-44): “In view of all the above facts, it is neces-
sary to conclude that the geologic principle of uniformity
would not have been in operation during a t least two ex-
tremely important periods of earth history, the Creation
and the Deluge. Thus the Bible, and not the present, is
the key to the future. This is a very important fact,
because the entire structure of evolutionary historical
geology rests squarely upon the assumption of uniformity,
and the scientific basis of the theory of evolution is almost
5 14
of the sun. 3. A flora and f a u n a f a r superior to t h a t of
 GENESIS
found in every continent today). 4. A human population
endowed with far greater physical vigor than that on earth
subsequent to the flood, and consequently long-lived. 1.
A human race which had grown to sufficient proportions
to enable it t o take possession of a very large part of the
earth as it then existed, and which had made great pro-
gress both i n the useful arts and in the fine arts, thus
indicating a highly advanced civilization. O n what evi-
dence does Rehwinkel base these conclusions? We have
not the space here, of course, t o present the details of his
argument. Suffice it to say that his main supporting evi-
dence is the fact of diversified mammal remains which
have been found in ossiferous fissures in widely separated
places in both hemispheres. Because no complete skeleton
has been found, the inference is that these animals did
not fall into the fissures while yet alive. Moreover, there
is no indication of weathering in these bones nor of their
being rolled b y water. Hence, since they were found to
be cemented together by calcite, the conclusion is that
they must have been deposited under water in the first
place. These finds point, undoubtedly, to a sudden catas-
trophe which broke up the earth’s crust into enormous
cracks, into which were poured the corpses of great num-
bers of animals that had been overwhelmed suddenly by
a flood. In some instances, the remains indicate that the
animals had perished instantly in great numbers. The
remains of the mammoth-an extinct species- have been
found in many divergent places of earth; hence, in this
case the matter of first importance is the actual date of
their extinction. The unsolved problem here is whether
or not fluorin dating and carbon 14 tests would indicate
a date sufficiently late to identify the catastrophe with
Noah’s Flood. Of course, the reliability of carbon 14 dat-
ing is now being questioned in several quarters. For
instance, Albright in an interview repeated in Christianity
Today (Jan. 1 8 , 1963, p. 4) went so far as to say that
516
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
“carbon 14 is now almost totally useless in dating bones,
which contain a minimum of carbon,” Rehwinkel, gen-
erally speaking, thinks of t h e antediluvian world as cotem-
poraneous with the history of early man as we find it in
the first eight chapters of Genesis. T o appreciate the
details of his argument, one must read his book; this the
student of the Bible who really wants to be informed will
do.
For a thoroughgoing presentation of the evidence for
the universality of the Flood, from every point of view-
both Biblical and scientific-the student should read the
excellent book by Drs. Henry M. Morris and John C.
Whitcomb, Jr., the former a scientists of liigh repute and
the latter and equally informed Bible scholar. The title
of the book is Tht Geiicsis Flood (See G F in our list of
Bibliographical Abbreviations s i r p v a ) . These authors sum-
marize their basic arguments for the geographical univer-
sality of the Flood as follows: “ ( 1 ) The Bible says t h a t
the waters of the Flood covered the highest mountains to
a depth sufficient for the Ark to float over them; ( 2 )
the Bible also informs us t h a t t h i s situation prevailed for
a period of five months and that an additional seven
months were required for t h e waters to subside sufficiently
for Noah to disembark in t h e mountains of Ararat; ( 3 )
the expression, “fountains of the great deep were broken
up,” points unmistaltably to vast geological disturbances
that are incompatible with the local-Flood concept, espe-
cially when these distrubances are said to have continued
for five months; ( 4 ) the construction of t h e Ark with
a capacity of a t least 1,400,000 cubic feet, merely for the
purpose of carrying eight people and a few animals through
a local inundation is utterly inconceivable; ( I ) if the
Flood had been limited in extent, there would have been
JIO need for an ark a t all, for there would havc been plenty
of time for Noah’s family to escape from t h e danger-area,
to say nothing of the birds and beasts; ( 6 ) Peter’s use of
517
 GENESIS
the Flood as a basis for refuting uniformitarian skeptics
in the last days would have been pointless if the Flood had
been merely a local one, especially when we consider the
cosmic setting into which he placed that cataclysm ( 2
Pet. 3 :3-7) ; and ( 7 ) a widely distributed human race
could not have been destroyed by a local Flood. In support
of our seventh argument, we presented four Biblical rea-
sons for the necessity of a total destruction of humanity
in the days of Noah: (1) since the stated purpose of the
Flood was the punishment of a sinful race, such a purpose
could not have been accomplished if only a part of human-
ity had been affected; ( 2 ) the fact that the Flood destroyed
the rest of mankind is greatly strengthened by repeated
statements in Genesis, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter, to the effect
that o d y Noah and his family were spared; ( 3 ) the
Lord Jesus Christ clearly stated that all men were des-
troyed by the Flood (Luke 17:26-30); and (4) the cov-
enant which God made with Noah after the Flood be-
comes meaningless if only a part of the human race had
been involved. In addition to these arguments for total
destruction of the human race except for Noah’s family,
we give t w o reasons for believing that the human race
could not have been confined to the Mesopotamian Valley
at the time of the Flood: (1) the longevity and fecundity
of the antediluvians would allow for a rapid increase in
population even if only 1,65 5 years elapsed between Adam
and the Flood; and the prevalence of strife and violence
would have encouraged wide distribution rather than con-
finement to a single locality; ( 2 ) evidence of human
fossils in widely-scattered parts of the world makes it
difficult t o assume that men did not migrate beyond the
Near East before the time of the Flood. The writers are
firmly convinced that these basic arguments, if carefully
weighed by Christian thinkers, would prove to be suffic-
iently powerful and compelling to settle once and for all
the long-debated question of the geographical extent of
118
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
the Flood. This is not to say, of course, t h a t a universal
Flood presents no serious scientific problems; for the re-
inaining chapters of this volume are devoted largely to
a n examination of such problems. But we do believe
t h a t no problem be it scientific or philosophical, can be
of sufficient magnitude to offset t h e combined force of
these seven Biblical arguments for a geographically uni-
versal Flood in the days of Noah” (GF, 3 3 - 3 T ) , The fore-
going excerpt should encourage t h e genuinely interested
Bible student to secure a copy of the Morris-Whitcomb
book and study in searchingly from beginning to end
before joining t h e ranks of the mythologizers and “demy-
thologizers.”
4. The Alleged Coiiiposifc Chaitarter of the Flood Narra-
tive
The analytical critics have parceled out t h e sixth,
seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis among their hypo-
thetical J and P and R (for “redactor”) sources. How-
ever, as Archer puts it (SOTI, 119), “these divergencies
are made possible only by an artificial process of dissec-
tion.” For example, it is insisted by the critics t h a t the
general command to take two of every species into the
ark (assigned to P) is incompatible with the exceptional
provision to take seven of every “cleany’species (attributed
to J ) . But the basis for this distinction seems so obvious
t h a t any ordinary reader should understand it. Green
(UBG, 91, 9 2 ) : “There is no discrepancy between the
general direction (6:19P), to take a pair of each kind
of animals into the ark in order to preserve alive the
various species, and the more specific requirement, when
the time arrived for entering the ark, t h a t clean beasts
should be taken by sevens and the unclean by twos (7:2J).
If it had been said t h a t only two should be taken of each
I
’ kind, t h e case would have been different. J also relapses
into the general form of statement (7:9) ; or if t h e critics
prefer, R does so, which amounts to the s a n e thing, as by
5 19
 GENESIS
hypothesis he had J’s previous statement before him.
There is n o contradiction here any more than there is
between the general and the more exact statement of
Noah’s age i n 7:6 and 11.”
Again, the critics profess to find a discrepancy con-
cerning the number of days during which the Flood
lasted. They insist that J gives the duration of it as forty
days (Gen. 7:12, 17; 8:6-plus two more weeks for the
sending out of the dove), whereas P makes it to have
been 150 days (Gen. 7:24). Archer (SOTI, 119) : “But
a consecutive reading of the whole narrative makes it
apparent that the author put the length of the downpour
itself a t forty days, whereas the prevalence of the water
level above the highest portions of the land surface endured
for 150 days (for 7:24 does not say that it rained during
that entire period.” Allis (FBM, 97-100) points out that
only in the three major points that are emphasized in the
Flood narrative is it possible to make out a case for alleged
<C
parallel accounts. ’’ These are : universal wickedness as
occasioning the necessity for Divine judgment; the destruc-
tion of “all flesh” as the purpose of it; and the gracious
rescue of a chosen remnant of human and subhuman
creatures from this destruction. These three points of
emphasis exemplify the characteristic Hebrew device of
reiteration for the sake of emphasis. Outside these points,
however, says Allis, it is impossible to ferret out parallel
accounts which do not depend on each other to supply
the missing links (details). All this boils down t o the
fact that the data involved in the Mosaic text are easily
reconcilable with unity of authorship, but on the other
hand present serious obstacles to attempted allocation into
divergent sources. (It seems to be a characteristic of the
Teutonic analytical mentality to see discrepancies where
none exist, that is, to be unable to see the forest for the
trees.) Green (UBG, 9-93) exposes in detail this false
methodoligical device of “parading a part as though it
520
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
were a whole,” The student is referred to this work if
he is interested in pursuing the study of this critical
problem. Green’s treatment of the documentary theory
here, t h a t is, with respect to the narrative of t h e Flood,
is so thorough as to compel rejection of t h e theory by all
unbiased minds. Again we quote Allis: “The second
feature of the Biblical style which readily lends itself to
source analysis is the frequency with which elaboration
and repetition occur in the Bible. It is true that t h e style
of the Bible is often marked by brevity and compactness.
A great deal is often said in remarkably few words. But
the Bible is a very emphatic book. Its aim is to impress
upon the hearer or reader the great importance of the
themes of which it treats. The most natural way of
securing emphasis in a narrative is by amplification or
reiteration. Consequently the Biblical style is often de-
cidedly diffuse and characterized by elaborateness of detail
.
and by repetition. . . There is perhaps no better illus-
tration of repetitive style in the Old Testament than this
flood narrative in Genesis.”
5 . Universality of tbe Traditions o f the Flood
(1) The extent to which oral and written traditions of
the Flood have persisted in all parts of the world is most
significant. Uniformly these are accounts of an earlier
race or an early world t h a t was once destroyed by the
Deluge. The peoples of Southwest Asia -Sumerians,
Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. -might be ex-
pected, of course, to cherish a tradition similar to t h a t of
the Hebrew people, as they inhabited the areas generally
accepted as the seat of antediluvian cultures. The Egyp-
tian version is repeated in Plato’s Timacus (his “likely
story” of the Creation of the world by the Demiurgos).
In t h e version preserved by Manetho the Egyptian priest
(3rd century B.C.) the only one saved from the Deluge
was the god Thoth. In the Greek account, Zeus, the
521
 GENESIS
supreme god of the Greek pantheon, is represented as
having determined to destroy the race because of its utter
degeneracy. However, on the basis of their piety, it was
decided to save one Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha.
Deucalion built a ship in which he and his wife floated
in safety during the nine days’ flood which destroyed all
the rest of the people. The ship finally came to rest on
Mt. Parnassus in Phocia, whereupon the two survivors
consulted the sanctuary of Themis and gained knowledge
as to how the race might be restored. Thus arose the
tradition of the autochthonous origin of the Attican
people, from stones thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrha
behind them: from those thrown by the former, men
sprang up out of the soil, and from those cast by Pyrrha,
women sprang up. (This story is exquisitely told by
Ovid in his Metfimorphoses). The Egyptian and Greek
traditions might have been a borrowing, of course, from
the Near East. The same could be true of the Noah tradi-
tion in Apamea (in Asia Minor) which apparently inspired
a representation of the ark on some of their coins. Archer
(SOTI, 199) : “But what shall we say of the legend of
Manu preserved among the Hindus (according to which
Manu and seven others were saved in a ship from a world-
wide flood); or of Fah-he among the Chinese (who was
the only survivor, along with his wife, three sons and
three daughters) ; or of Nu-u among the Hawaiians, or of
Tezpi among the Mexican Indians, or of Manabozho among
the Algonquins? All of these agree that all mankind was
destroyed by a great flood (usually represented as world-
wide) as a result of divine displeasure a t human sin, and
that a single man with his family or a very few friends
~ survived the catastrophe by means of a ship or raft or
large canoe of some sort.”
( 2 ) Again, what shall we say of the numerous Flood
traditions which do not include the saving instrumentality
522
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
of an ark or boat of some kind? Among the Andaman
Islanders, for example (in t h e Bay of Bengal), and t h e
Battaks of Sumatra, a high mountain top is said to have
l provided the refuge for a lone survivor. Other primitive
traditions follow the basic structure of the Genesis narra-
tive: they preserve the report of a universal deluge which
wiped out the whole human race with the exception of
only one or two survivors. Among those holding such
traditions, Archer (p. 199) lists t h e Icurnai (a tribe of
Australian aborigines) , t h e Fiji Islanders, the natives of
Polynesia, Micronesia, New Guinea, New Zealand, New
Hebrides, the ancient Celts of Wales, the tribesmen of
Lauke Caudie in the Sudan, the Hottentots, and the Green-
landers. He summarizes as follows: “Whether or not the
world-wide prevalence of these traditions is reconcilable
with a local-flood theory, a t least it emphasizes the in-
clusion of all human races in the descendants of Noah,
rather than excepting some of the populations of Africa,
India, China and America (as Ramm seems to imply in
CVSS 239-240).” It seems most reasonable to conclude
that this universal tradition must have emanated from a
common origin and become world -wide through diffusion
of peoples from t h a t common origin. And certainly the
Biblical account of the Noahic Flood must be accepted as
that common origin, if on no other ground than t h a t of
its moral and spiritual motif. (The student is referred to
Richard Andree’s German work Die FIirtsagei? [ 189 I ] for
t h e most complete collection of Flood legends from all
over the world, and to Sir James Frazer’s Follt1oi;e ii? the
Old Testamelit [Vol. I, 19181 for what is perhaps the
most comprehensive collection in English) .
6. The Babylonian S t o i y of the Flood
( 1 ) This version of the Deluge story constitutes t h e
eleventh book of the famous Assyrian-Babylonian Epic of
Gilgamesh. The cuneiform text in its extent form came
523
 GENESIS
from the library of the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (669-
626 B.C.), but was evidently transcribed from much older
originals. The Flood tablets were unearthed by Rassam
a t what was once Nineveh, but not identified until 1872,
when George Smith, who was then engaged in studying
and classifying cuneiform finds, first recognized them.
This was one of the most spectacular discoveries in the
whole history of Biblical archaeology. However, this
Assyrian version of the story of the Deluge was similar
in substance t o an older Sumerian legend, recorded on the
fragment of a tablet found a t ancient Nippur in north
central Babylonia. In this tablet it is recorded how a
certain king-priest Ziusudra, warned of an approaching
deluge which the assembly of the gods had decreed for the
purpose of destroying mankind (despite the groanings of
the goddess Ishtar for her people), built a huge boat in
which he “rode out” the threatened catastrophe. This
table dates from about 2000 B.C., but the story had been
known in Mesopotamia for centuries. It is found in
Akkadian versions from both Babylonia and Assyria, in
more than one composition. The best known of these
is the one mentioned above, which forms part of Tablet
XI of the longer composition, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and
which was as Assyrian recension of the Akkadian, and in
which Ziusudra of the older Sumerian version reappears
as the legendary hero under the name of Utnapishtim
(“the day of life”).
As the story is given in the Assyrian (generally desig-
nated the Babylonian) narrative, the hero Gilgamesh is
seeking the last survivor of the great Flood to learn from
him the secret of immortality. After crossing difficult
mountain ranges and successfully navigating the Waters
of Death, Gilgamesh finally meets Utnapishtim, who tells
him all about his salvation from the Flood through his
obedience to the god Ea, the god of wisdom. The follow-
5 24
 THE WORLD UNDER TIlE FLOOD
ing is Utnayishtim’s story, as summarized in texts by
Cornfeld ( A t D ) , Unger AOT), Archer (SOTI), et a1
(translations in quotes from Pritcliard [Ed], Aizcieiit Near
Eust Texts), The gods in assembly had decided on the
destruction of mankind by a flood. The god Ea wanted
to warn Utnapishtim, but apparently i t was forbidden to
divulge the proceedings of the assembly. Nevertheless Ea
devised a strategy by which he enabled Utnapishtim, who
dwelt at Shuruppak, a city on t h e Euphrates, to escape the
impending doom by means of a huge cube-shaped boat.
The poet then describes the approaching storm: “The gods
were frightened by t h e deluge; the gods crouched like
dogs.” Especially did Ishtar, t h e sweet-voiced mistress of
the gods, bewail her part in t h e destruction of her people
by the Flood; and after contemplating the terrible doom
that was falling upon mankind as a consequence of their
decree, all the gods mourned. The storm, which was
brief, lasting only six days and six nights, was of such
violence of wind and rain, that the gods themselves were
terrified. After landing on Mount Nisir, one of the
mountains of YJrartu” (Ararat?) in the Zagros Range
northeast of Babylon, the ark held fast, and Utnapishtim
sent out, in the order named, a dove, a swallow, and a
raven. The raven did not return. Then he let out all
“to the four winds and offered a sacrifice.” The gods
responded in a most undignified way to the sacrifice so
gratefully offered by the hero: “The gods smelled the
savor, The gods smelled the sweet savor, The gods crowded
like flies about the sacrifice.” Enlil (or Bel) showed up
later incensed that Utnapishtim had escaped death, but
Ea successfully appealed to his sense of justice, and there-
upon he elevated Utnapishtim and his wife to a blessed
immortality. ( I t is interesting to note here than in an
older version of the Flood tradition-the Atraliasis Epic-
a different, and very significant, cause of the Deluge is
525
 GENESIS
given. “The land became wide, the people became numer-
ous, the land hummed like a lyre (or: bellowed like old
oxen). The god (Enlil) was disturbed by the uproar.
Enlil heard their clamor, And said to the great gods:
‘Oppressive has become the clamor of mankind; by their
clamor they prevent sleep.’” This sounds very much like
the cause of Divine judgment declared in Genesis 6:13:
“The earth is filled with violence.’’ It bears not too re-
mote a resemblance to the clamor-riots, revolutions,
demonstrations, orgies, cruelties, wars-of mankind in our
own time.
What, then, are we to conclude as regards the relation
between the Babylonian and the Hebrew accounts of the
great Deluge? It must be admitted that there are several
striking similarities. Unger (AOT, 5Ii-65) lists these as
follows: both accounts (1) state explicitly that the Flood
was divinely planned; ( 2 ) agree that the fact of the
impending catastrophe was divinely revealed to the hero
involved; ( 3 ) connect the Deluge with moral degeneracy
of the human race; (4) tell of the deliverance of the hero
and his family; ( 5 ) assert that the hero was divinely in-
structed to build a huge boat for this deliverance; (6)
indicate the physical causes of the Flood; (7) specify the
duration of the Flood; ( 8 ) name the landing place of the
boat; ( 9 ) tell of the sending forth of birds a t certain
intervals to ascertain the measure of the subsidence of the
waters; (10) describe acts of worship by the hero after
his deliverance; (11) allude to the bestowing of special
blessings on the hero following the disaster.
On the other hand, account must be taken of the
differences in details between the narratives, and in those
details especially that are of ethical and spiritual signifi-
cance. Heidel (GEOTP, 14) has carefully analyzed a
number of these differences (repeated briefly by Morris
and Whitcomb [GF, 391 according to the following table:
526
 THE WORLD UNDER T H E FLOOD
Gctlcsis Nanatliiir Babulonion Account

1. The Ai~fhor T h e one living and true T h e Flood was invoked by

of the Flood God brought on the Flood tho rashness of the god
to wipe out universal Enlil, and in opposition ta
human degeneracy, the will of the other gods.

2 . T h e Aiiirowrcemetif God Himself warned Noah T h e fact of impending

of the Flood od the impending judgment, doom is kept as a secret by
b u t gave man 120 years to the gods, but Utnapishtim
repent and reform. is surreptitiously warned of
i t by the god E a .

3. T h e Ark. and its Noah’s ark is said to have T h e A r k is 120 x 120 x

occl*po?lt S been 300 x IO x 50 cubits, 120 cubits, with nine decks,
with three decks, carrying carrying the hero’s family
eight persons, two pairs of and relatives plus all his
each unclean animal species, gold and silver, the boat-
seven pairs of each clean man, all craftsmen (or
animal species, plus the learned m e n ) , and “the
necessary food. seed of all living creatures.”

+. Cniises and Ditrufion Caused by the breaking u p T h e only cause mentioned

of the Flood of the fountains of the is rain, and this lasted only
great deep and the openings six days, then after an un-
of the windows of heaven, specified number of days
continuing for 110 days the occupants left the
followed by an additional vessel.
2 2 1 days during which the
waters subsided.

’. T h e Birds A raven is sent out first, A dove is sent out first,

then a dove three times a t then a swallow, and finally
intervals of seven days. a raven, a t unspecified in-
tervals. No mention is made
of the olive leaf.

;. T h e Sacrifice The Lond graciously re- The hungry gods “gathered

and BIessings ceived Noah’s! sacrifice, gave like flies” around the
him and his family a com- offerer because they had
mission to repopulate the been so long deprived of
earth, emphasized the sanc- food. A quarrel between
tity of human life, prorn- Enlil and Ea ensued. Finally
iscd never again to destroy Enlil blessed Utnapishtim
the earth by a flood. and his wife, after being
rebuked by Ea for his rash-
ness in bringing the Flood
upon them. Finally, the
hero and his wife were
rewarded by deification.
 GENESIS
What, then, can we reasonably conclude about the rela-
tion between these two Flood narratives? That the Baby-
lonians borrowed from the Genesis account’? Hardly,
because the earliest known tablets from Mesopotamia are
undoubtedly much older than the book of Genesis: indeed
they are dated back as far as the third millenium B.C.
On the other hand, it is possible that the version of the
Deluge given us in Genesis may have existed in some form,
even possibly in oral tradition, centuries before it became
embodied by supervisory inspiration of the Spirit in the
Mosaic account. Then can we accept the view advanced
by certain archaeologists, That the Genesis account is a
borrowing from earlier Babylonian traditions? Or, that it
was a transplant, as some have contended, from western
Amorite traditions both to Palestine and to Babylonia?
Here, however, we encounter an insuperable difficulty-
that of the divergent character, in motif and in tone, of
the two accounts. That is to say, the Biblical account of
the Flood is so far more rational, consistent, and ethically
elevated in content, that it would be unreasonable to
assume that it is in any respect borrowed from, or de-
thetical earlier sources. For example, in the Babylonian
Flood story the gods are represented as gathering clouds
and bringing on thunder and lightning, thus producing
such fearsome celestial clamor; that the terror of the storm
drives the gods themselves into the most inaccessible heaven.
But, as Kaufmann points out, in the Genesis account
there is no mention of terrifying natural spectacles; on
the contrary, “God brings on the Flood by opening the
gates of the deep and the windows of heaven; clouds are
not even mentioned,” nor is there any mention of “divine
raging in storm.” Cornfeld (AtD, 3 1 ) : “The parallels
between the Biblical account and the Babylonian version
are fairly obvious and a t times remarkable for their re-
semblance, though the major part of the Epic of Gil-
gamesh is far different. Its polytheist spirit is in contrast
528
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
with the basic purpose of t h e Hebrew narrative. In form
the latter is impersonal and it purports to account for
God’s actions, his motives and his judgment by t h e de-
pravity of humanity, The story told by Utnapishtim is
in the form of an illustrative tale, in which he tries to
convince his listeners that immortality was granted to him
under unique circumstances, never again to be acliieved
by a mortal. It contains no judgment on the concern
of the gods or on the moral conduct of man.” (See
Unger, AOT, 65-71, for a thoroughgoing presentation of
the vast differences between the two accounts, in their
conceptions of God, in their moral conceptions, and even
in their philosophical assumptions-hopeless confusion of
matter and spirit and attribution of eternity to both, etc.).
Finally, in this connection, could i t possibly be, as a
third explanation of the relation between the two ac-
counts, t h a t both might J3ave origiiiafed f r o m a commoii
source which had its begimiiig in an actual occurreizce?
O n this point, Unger (ATO, 70) quotes A. T. Clay ( T h e
Origin of Biblical Traditions, Y a l e Oriental Series, XI1
[1923], p. 164) as follows: “Assyriologists, as far as I
know, have generally dismissed as an impossibility the idea
that there was a common Semitic tradition, which de-
veloped in Israel in one way, and in Babylonia in another.
They have unreservedly declared t h a t the Biblical stories
have been borrowed from Babylonia, in which land they
were indigenous. To me it has always seemed perfectly
reasonable that both stories had a common origin among
the Semites, some of whom entered Babylonia, while others
carried their traditions into Palestine.” T o this, Unger
himself adds (ATO, 71) : “The Hebrews scarcely lived an
isolated life, and it would be strange indeed if they did
not possess similar traditions as other Semitic nations.
These common traditions among the Hebrews are reflected
in the true and authentic facts given them by divine in-
spiration in their sacred writings, Moses very likely was
5 29
 GENESIS
conversant with these traditions. If he was, inspiration
enabled him to record them accurately, purged of all their
crude polytheistic incrustations and to adapt them to the
elevated framework of truth and pure monotheism. If he
was not, the Spirit of God was able to give him the revela-
tion of these events apart from the need of any oral or
written sources. In either case supernatural inspiration
was equally necessary, whether to purge the perverted
polytheistic tradition and refine it to fit the mold o f
monotheism or to give an original revelation of the
authentic facts apart from oral or written sources.” We
are in complete agreement with these conclusions.
7. The Physiographic Causes of the Flood
( 1 ) Gen. 7 : l l ; cf. 8:2. ( a ) “All the fountains of the
great deep were broken up’’ (R.S.V., “burst forth”). T.
Lewis (CDHCG, 305) suggests that the “great deep”
here refers to the concept of subterranean oceans from
which the waters burst forth. Likewise Skinner (ICCG,
164) : “Outbursts of subterranean water are a frequent
accompaniment of seismic distrubances in the alluvial dis-
tricts of great rivers; and a knowledge of this fact must
have suggested the feature here expressed. In accordance
with ancient ideas, however, it is conceived as an eruption
of the subterranean ocean on which the earth was believed
to rest. At t h e same time the windows of heaven were
opelied allowing the waters of the heavenly ocean to mingle
with the lower.” The view seems to prevail among com-
mentators that the phrase, “fountains of the great deep”
implies t h a t t h e waters of all seas broke out and poured
over the land, that the earth was rent asunder in many
areas, and great fissures or chasms appeared on its surface.
But such changes as these are cataclysmic, such as are
caused only by earthquakes, volcanic activities, tidal waves,
etc. (Cf., however, my Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 270-276, in
which it is emphasized that the “deep” of Gen. 1:2 could
well have been the depths of infinite space, on the basis
530
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
of the meaning of the context in which the word occurs,
and on the basis also of t h e fact t h a t in the thinking of
the ancients what we today call chaos really did mean
e ? n j t y space. Of course, all such events as those associated
with the bursting forth of subterranean waters and even
with the downpour of waters in t h e form of rain i n c w
atvzosflheric chaf$ges of all kifrds (and surely the “firma-
ment” [literally, “expanse”] of Gen. 1:6-8 is descriptive
of the regions of the atmosphere which make up space
in general), Lange suggests this fact, in relation to t h e
meaning of Gen. 7: 11 (CDHCG, 3 0 5 ) : “A/l the four?-
$aim of ike great deep were brolten 24): the passive form
denotes violent changes in the depths of the sea or in the
action of the earth-at all events in the atmosphere.”)
(b) “The windows of heaven were opened” (A.S.V., “the
heavens”) ; that is, the flood-gates (sluices) were opened
for rain from above. rrArid the raiir was upotr the earth
forty days aizd f o r t y iiigbts.” Literally, “tkere was violelif
rah,” etc. The verb here is not that which is used to
designate any rain, but that which clearly designates tor-
rential rain: it is used of other things which God is said
to pour down from heaven (Exo. 9 : 18, 1 6 : 4 ) . (For the
phrase “windows of heaven,” see Gen. 8:2, 2 Ki. 7:19,
Isa. 24:18, Mal. 3:lO.) Whitelaw (PCG, 117, 118):
“Though the language is metaphorical and optical, it clearly
points to a change in the land level by which the ocean
waters overflowed the depressed continent, accompanied
with heavy and continuous rain, as the cause of t h e Deluge
, , , yet ‘the exact statement of t h e natural causes that
concurred in the Deluge is a circumstance which certainly
in no wise removes the miraculous nature of the whole fact
-who has unveiled the mysteries of nature?-but certainly
shows how exact was the attention paid to the external
phenomena of the Deluge’ (Havernick) .” But, someone
may object, t h e water cycle on our planet operates in a
closed system, The critic overlooks the fact t h a t the
53 1
 GENESIS
Flood could have changed the original balance between
lands and seas and heavy rain of the duration specified
could have contributed greatly to this change. But-
where did all the water come from? Rehwinkel suggests:
( a ) in normal times there are areas in the world where
heavy rains continue to fall day after day, year in and
year out; (b) there is clear evidence that the Flood was
accompanied by ‘an abrupt change in climate resulting
finally in the rigors of the polar regions of the earth;
(c) extensive volcanic activities in all parts of the earth
could have contributed to the formation of clouds and
heavy rainfall. In a word, the impact of these sudden
changes must have been terrific as cold air and cold water
currents met and mingled with the warm, producing
mountains of fog and cloud rising into the air and dis-
charging their load in torrential rains. Noah’s flood was
n o t jabst a “normal” flood--it wns cataclysmic. This k
in bnrmmay with the teaching of Scripture from beginning
to end, that special Divine Judgments are, to say the least,
horwndous, producing catastrophe and temporary chaos
in the physical world, and terror in all mortals who ex-
perience them (cf. Exo. 19:16-24; Rom. 2:8-11; Heb.
10:26-31, 12:18-29; Rev. 4;J,,6:lJ-17). Even the ex-
perience of the Divine Presence in blessing is awesome
beyond the power of mortal man to apprehend or describe
in words (cf. Gen. 19:16-17).
8. Successive Stages irt the Increase of the Flood (7:17-
19).
V. 17: The waters increased, that is, grew great: this
first increase was marked by the elevation of the Ark
above the land. V. 1 8 : The waters increased greatly, the
second degree of increase marked by the moving (float-
ing) of the Ark upon the waters. V. 1 9 T h e waters
prevailed (became strong) exceedingly, the third degree of
increase being marked by the submergence of the high
mountains. Note Whitelaw’s comment here (PCG, 119) :
532
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
“While it is admitted t h a t the words may depict a complete
submergence of t h e globe, it is maintained by many compe-
tent scholars that the necessities of exegesis demand only
a partial inundation.” Again (p, 121) in reference to the
universality of the Flood: “The conclusion seems to be
that, while Scripture does not imperatively forbid the idea
of a partial Delugem science seems to require it, and,
without ascribing to all t h e scientific objections t h a t are
urged against the universality of the Flood that importance
which their authors assign t o them, it may be safely
affirmed that there is considerable reason for believing
t h a t the ?fiabbul which swept away the antediluvian men
was confined to the region which they inhabited.” (For
the pros and cons of this controversy, see PCG, under
ccHomiIetics,yypp. 119-121). Strange as it may seem,
Murphy, whose orthodoxy can hardly be questioned, takes
the same view. He writes (MG, 193) : “Upon the land.
The land is to be understood of the portion of the earth’s
surface known to man. This, with an unknown margin
beyond it, was covered with the waters. Rut this is all
that Scripture warrants us to assert. Concerning the
distant parts of Europe, the continents of Africa, Amer-
cia, or Australia, we can say nothing, All the bills were
covered. Not a hill was above water within the horizon
of the spectator or of man.” Again (p. 192): “The
beautiful figure of the windows of the skies being opened
is preceded by the equally striking one of the fountains
of the great deep being broken up. This was the chief
source of the flood, A change in the level of the land
was accomplished. That which had emerged from the
waters of the third day of the last creation was now again
submerged. The waters of the great deep now broke their
bounds, flowed in on the sunken hurface, and drowned
the world of man, with all its inhabitants. The accom-
panying heavy rain of forty days and nights was, in
reality, only a subsidiary instrument in the deluging of
533
 GENESIS
the land.” (It should be noted here that Murphy renders
erets as “land” and bar as “hills” [not ccmountainsy’]in
these verses.) (All these various excerpts from eminent
authorities of all persuasions-“conservative” or “liberal”
or in-between-certainly show that the controversy be-
tween the advocates of the universal-flood theory and
those of the localized-flood theory is still going on, and
without any prospect of dogmatic resolution. The author
of the present text must confess that he is inclined t o
the acceptance of the vigorous presentation of the universal-
flood theory, as found in the texts by Rehwinkel, and by
Morris and Whitcomb.)
9 . The Coritents of the Ark.
( 1 ) These included Noah and his wife, their three sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their respective wives,
eight persons in all (Gen. 7:7, 8:17; also 1 Pet. 3:20; 2
Pet. 2 : 5 ) ; of every living species, by twos, that is, male
and female (6:19, 7:2, 7:8-9; and 7:15-16, which espe-
cially makes it clear that “two and two” means, “by twos,JJ
or male and female). It seems evident that in the first
communication from God (6:19), which was given 120
years previous to the actual event, when detailed instruc-
tions were not as yet necessary, it was simply stated that
the animals should be preserved by pairs; that in the
second, when the Ark was finished and the animals were
about to be assembled, an exception was to be made to
the previously announced general rule, namely, that not
just one pair, but seven pairs of one kind ( c l e m animals)
and two pairs of another kind (unclean animals), were
t o be preserved. (Cf. 7 : 2 , “of bemts that are not clean by
two,”etc. Whitelaw [PCG, 1151: “Cf. Gen. 2:25, where
the phrase denotes the ethical personality of human beings,
to which there is here an approximation, as the preserved
animals were designed to be the parents of subsequent
races. The usual phrase which is employed in ch. 1:28
[a so-called Elohistic] and ch. 7:3 [a so-called Jehovistic
534
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
section] refers to the physical distinction of sex in human
beings,”) (This, of course, negates t h e notion sometimes
suggested that “seven and seven” of 7:2, or “by sevens,”
specifies three pairs, with one left over for sacrificial
purposes.) To sum up: Of living species all went in by
twos, male and female (6:19), divided as follows: of cleaii
animals, seven pairs of every kind (7: 1 4 ) , of uiicleaii
animals, two pairs of every kind (7:2), of birds of the
heavens, seven pairs of every kind (7: 3 ) , (Note especially
t h e significance of the word kind, as used in 7: 14 of all
these categories,) Cf. 6:19-20, 7:14, and 7:21-23: it
will be noted t h a t the classification here is precisely that
which is given in t h e first chapter of Genesis (v. 24) to
describe the different k h d s of land animals, namely, cattle
(domesticated animals, mainly Herbivora, probably) , beasts
of the field (wild beasts, roughly Carnivora), and creeping
things (reptiles, insects, and very small quadrupeds) .
Morris and Whitcomb af firm-rightly, this author believes
-that these passages destroy the argument that is fre-
quently offered, that only domesticated animals were taken
into the Ark. They write (GF, 1 3 ) : “If only domesticated
animals were to be taken into the Ark, are we t o assume
that only domesticated animals were created by God in
the first chapter of Genesis? The fact of the matter is
t h a t no clearer terms could have been employed by the
author than those which he did employ to express the
idea of the totality of air-breathing aniivals i i z the world.
Once this point is conceded, all controversy as to the
geographical extent of the Deluge must end; for no one
would care to maintain that all land animals were confined
to the Mesopotamian Valley in the days of Noah.” (Cf.
Gen. 6:7; 6:17; 6:12-13, 19-21; 7t2-4; 8, 14-16; 8 : 1 ,
17-19; 9:8-17, and especially 7:21-23, with Gen. 1:20-27).
(NBD, 427: “No mention is made of sea-creatures, but
these may have been included in ‘every living thing of all
flesh’ [6: 191 and could have been accomodated outside
53 5
 GENESIS
not a matter of any consequence to Noah-he needed a
boat for f l m t i n g only). (Cf. the construction of Odys-
seus’ “raft,” Odyssey V, 243-261.)
( 2 ) Again, What shall w e say about the capdcity of the
Ark in relation to its cargo? This raises the question as
to what the word “kind” includes, with reference t o the
Ark’s living cargo ( 7 : 1 4 ) . The problem is not how
“kinds” are classified by man, but how they are classified
by God; not what man means by the term, but what God
means by it, for, let us not forget, it is God who, by His
Spirit, is telling the story. Does “kind,” then, refer to a
phylum, or a genus, or to a species? The common unit
in such classifications by scientists is the species, which is
roughly defined as a distinct (hence, “specific”) kind of
animal or plant whose members breed together and produce
fertile offspring, thozigh not necessarily a rigidly fixed
kind. Because protoplasm is characterized by the power of
molding itself to various environments, the lines of classifi-
cation cannot be regarded as inevitably determined. As a
mater of fact, as Rehwinkel puts it (Fl, 7 1 ) , “a species
is a concept in the eye of the scientist.” (It seems to be
a tendency among present-day zoologists to multiply
species unnecessarily.) How many species are there in the
world today? Who can say? How many were there in
Noah’s time? Again, who can say? Were there as many
in Noah’s time as there are today? Who knows, or even
can know? (It seems obvious that the remains of pre-
historic species-e.g., dinosaurs, brontosaurs, ichthyosaurs,
pterodactyls, mammoths, etc.-were fossilized either be-
fore the Flood or as a consequence of the Flood.) Biolo-
I
gists of our day suppose a classification of fifteen separate
phyla. But life, we are told, tends to appear in these few
basic forms and then to move in ever-spreading diversity.
We simply do not know, we cannot know, how many
“kinds” are in existence today, much less how many there
were in Noah’s day or how many were represented in the
$38
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
animal population of the Ark, All we need know, as a
matter of fact, is that the diversity was sufficient to allow
for the preservation of those species (prototypes) neces-
sary for the preservation of all species, necessary to the
total life of the inhabited world, and necessary in a special
sense to the welfare of man, t h e crown of the whole
creation (Ps. 8 ) .
Concerning the problem of t h e Ark and its cargo,
Archer (SOTI, 200) presents one view, as follows: “There
are, of course, manifold problems connected with main-
taining such a large number of animals over so many
months (especially if they maintained their normal eating
habits), but none of them are insuperable. Perhaps it
should be remarked a t this point that a mere local flood,
only coextensive with the human race in the Mesopotamian
or Aral-Caspian depressions is hard to reconcile with the
divine insistence (cf. Gen. 6:19, 20) upon the preserva-
tion of representatives of all the various kinds of animal.
There are very few species today which are confined to
that particular region, and so it is difficult to see why
the animals in the surrounding, non-flooded area would
not have been able to repopulate the devastated region
without hindrance, once the waters had receded. Hence
it would have been pointless to include them in the Ark.”
T. Lewis (CDHCG, 2 9 8 ) really states the crux of the
problem in these words: “There is more force in the
objection arising from the stowage of the ark, if we take
the common estimate of the animals. But here, again,
everything depends upon the theory with which we start.
Throughout the account the several a h . . . become uni-
versal or specific, widen or contract, according to our
pre-judgment of the universality or partiality of the flood
itself.” (This writer’s Excursus on this problem, CDHCG,
3 14-322, is recommended as being probably the most
thoroughgoing defense of the localized-Flood theory avail-
able to the student, The excerpts quoted in foregoing
539
 GENESIS
sections will serve to show that there is disagreement as to
whether the Flood was universal or only regional in extent,
even among authorities who do not even question the
Divine inspiration and authority of the Bible.)
( 3 ) Again, How was it possible for eight persons to
feed and provide drink for all the different animals housed
iiz the Ark for more than a year? How was it possible
f o r t h e m to clean the vessel? How could the Ark have
accominodated the iaatural increase of the animals in it?
I n answer to these related problems, the suggestion has
often been made that probably the animals hibernated
during the greater part of the time they were in the Ark.
This certainly is not beyond the realm of possibility, and
it surely would provide a solution for many troublesome
questions.. However, it implies a miraculous interference
with the living habits of most of the animals aboard, and
certainly Divine interference for Divine ends, by the
Divine Intelligence and Will which is the constitution
of all being, is not to be ruled out arbitrarily, except by
those “intellectuals” who pride themselves on being known
as “naturalists.” But, after all what is natzire? Certainly
it is not an entity in itself; rather, it is only a convenient
term for observed phenomena. And who knows, as Santa-
yana is said to have put it, but that the “supernatural”
is simply the “not-as-yet-understood natural”? As for
the task of keeping the Ark clean and sanitary, a t least
for human occupancy, we may well suppose-to use a
favorite Darwinian phrase-that this too was accomplished
in some satisfactory manner by Divine direction. Again,
could not the natural increase of species have been con-
trolled by means known to those persons who were in
charge of the Ark and its cargo? It would appear that
this might have been accomplished by separation of females
from the males a t proper rhythmic intervals natural to
each kind: indeed it is possible that the sexes were kept
separate throughout their entire occupancy of the vessel;
40
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
according to Scripture their procreative functions were
to be renewed especially for repopulating the jostdilwian
world with their various “kinds.” Moreover, should there
have been increase of the various “kinds” (of clean animals
especially) within the Ark, this undoubtedly would have
been used for food and for sacrificial purposes also. If
the Ark was of the dimensions indicated above, the stow-
age of necessary vegetable food (“fodder”) for the animals
seems not to involve too great a problem. As for preser-
vation of plant life, that is no problem whatsoever. The
life of the plant is in the seed, of course. And seeds that
were buried beneath the sands of Egypt five thousand
years ago have been dug up, planted, and found to re-
produce their respective kinds. Therefore, it follows that
Noah had only to preserve intact the seeds of the various
plant forms to effect the restoration of all kinds of flora
in the postdiluvian world.
11. The Distinctioiz Between Clean and Unclean Animals
It should be noted that this distinction prevailed prior
to the building of the Ark: it was embodied in God’s
specifications as to the kinds of species, and numbers of
each kind, that were to be taken into it (Gen. 7 : 2 ) .
There is no evidence that the distinction originated after
the Flood or even in connection with the Flood. O n the
contrary, Scripture points indubitably t o the fact that
the distinction was an integral part of the Law of Sacri-
fice from the beginning. In Genesis 4:4, we are told
that Abel brought of the “firstlings” of his flock, that is,
on the basis of “the best for God,” and, undoubtedly by
Divine authorization, to point forward t o God’s Firstborn
(Only Begotten) as the Lamb of God slain (in the Eternal
Purpose) “from the foundation of the world” (Exo. 12:3,
5 ; Exo. 13:12; John 1:29, 3:16; Col. l:lY, 18; Heb. 1:6;
h a . Y3:7; Rev. l:Y, 13:8; Matt. 2Y:34; Rev. 17:8; 1
Pet. 1: 18-21), Although this distinction involved the
moral virtue of obedience, it was essentially a positive
541
 GENESIS
enactment; that is, its validity rested solely on the ground
that God ordained it. (It must be remembered that a
moral law is commanded because it is right per se, whereas
a positive law is right because God commands it.) This
distinction between clean and unclean animals was carried
over into the Mosaic System, not only in connection with
the institution of sacrifice, but also with respect to man’s
food. Clean beasts included the following: “whatsoever
parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and sheweth the
cud, among the beasts, that ye may eat” (Lev. 1:l-3). It
did not suffice for an animal to possess only one of these
characteristics: it had to possess all three of them to be
classed as a clean animal. Sacrificial victims had to be
taken from clean animals and birds (Gen. 8:20): these
could be bullock, goat, sheep, dove, or pigeon (Lev. 11:l-
3, Gen. 1 ~ : 9 ) but
, not camel, hog, ass, or hare (Lev.
11:4-8, 46-47; Exo. 13:13). As shown in previous sec-
tions herein, the Law of Sacrifice is coetaneous with true
religion (Gen, 3:21, 4:1-Y; Heb. 11:4; Rom. 10:17).
12. The Sziprriiatural iir the Genesis Story of the Flood
( 1 ) Much has been said and written about the “natural”
and the “superatural” in the Biblical account of the Deluge.
It is not necessary, however, to assume that a universal
Flood would have necessitated (as Ramm puts it, CVSS,
244) “an endless supplying of miracles.’’ On the other
hand there are certain aspects of the narrative which
clearly indicate special Divine intervention, that is, “super-
natural” Divine activities, commonly called “mighty
works” or “miracles,” works which lie beyond the scope
of human power to effect (cf. Acts 2 : 2 2 ) . This super-
natural element cannot be ruled out altogether, nor can
it be “explained away”: it is there to be reckoned with,
if the Deluge was anything like the event described in
Genesis, and especially if it accomplished the ends for
which God brought it on the wicked antediluvian world.
j42
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
(2) It will be noted, first of all, t h a t it was God who
wariied Noah of the impending judgment, tliat it was
God who gave Noah the plans and specifications for the
Ark and its conteiits by ineaiis of which they were to
ride out the catastrophe in safety; t h a t it was God who,
when the vessel was completed, invited Noah to come into
it with all t h e members of his house (7: 1 ) . It was God
who said to Noah concerning the animals, “two of every
sort shall c o i m uwto thee” (6:20) ; hence we read that
“they weiit uiito Noah i i i t o t h e ark, two and two of
all flesh, wherein is t h e breath of life” (7: 15). Note
well that God directed the animals to coiii,e unto Noah,
not Noah to go in search of the animals ( 6 2 0 ; 7 : 9 , 1 5 ).
As Noah and the members of his house, eight souls in all
(1 Pet. 3:20), went in unto God into the Ark, so all the
animals went in unto Noah into the Ark, to man who
was by God’s appointment lord tenant of the creation
(Gen. 1:27-28), How is this gathering of the species
unto Noah to be accounted for? Obviously, only by a
Divine impartation to them of some form of i7i.stincfive
migratory response which impelled them to their destina-
tion. After all, what is inxtiistct but the Universal In-
telligence operating through the whole of the subhuman
world to direct all species to the actualization of their
respective inherent ends of being? Rehwinlrel (Fl, 72) :
“In the expression ‘they came’ i t is clearly indicated that
the animals collected about Noah and entered the ark of
their own accord, t h a t is, without any special effort on
Noah’s part. The animals came by instinct, but God had
planted in them this special instinct for this occasion,
Just as, in the beginning, God had brought the animals
to Adam t h a t he should name them, so he now brought
them to Noah t h a t he might keep them in the ark for
a replenishing of the earth after the Flood.’’ Morris and
Whitcomb (GF, 76) : “Once we grant God’s power in
543
 GENESIS
bringing the animals t o the Ark, we have no right to deny
His power over the animals while they were in the Ark.
The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot have any
kind of a Genesis Flood without acknowledging the pres-
ence of supernatural elements” (cf. Psa. 29 :10, where
the reference is clearly to the Noahic Deluge, mwbbul).
Again: “That God intervened in a supernatural way to
gather the animals into the Ark and to keep them under
control during the year of the Flood is explicitly stated in
the text of Scripture. Furthermore, it is obvious that the
opening of the ‘windows of heaven’ in order to allow ‘the
waters which were above the firmament’ to fall upon the
earth, and the breaking up of ‘all the fountains of the
great deep’ were supernatural acts of God. But through-
out the entire process, ‘the waters which were above the
firmament’ and ‘the waters which were under the firma-
ment’ acted according t o the k n w n laws of hydrostatics
and hydrodynamics.”
( 3 ) Again, in this connection, Lange (CDHCG, 295)
notes that “the history of the Flood is a hapax Zegomenoln
in the world’s history, analogous to the creation of Adam,
the birth and history of Christ, and the future history of
the world’s end.’’ And again Morris and Whitcomb (GF,
793: “Whether or not such a concept can be adjusted
harmoniously into one’s theological or philosophical pre-
suppositions, it happens to be true nonetheless that the
Flood was a n utterly unique and never-to-be-repeated
phenomenon, a year-long demonstration of the omni-
potence of a righteous God which mankind has never been
permitted to forget, and a crisis in earth-history that is
comparable i n Scripture only to the creation and to the
final renovation of the earth by fire a t the end of the
age. It is because the Bible itself teaches us these things
that we are fully justified in appealing to t h e power of
God, whether or not He used means amenable to our
5 44
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
scientific understanding, for the gatliering of two of every
kind of animal into the Ark and for t h e care and preserva-
tion of those animals in the Ark during the 371 days of
t h e Flood,”
(4) Finally, it should be noted well that once Noah
and his family, and the animals, and the food for their
sustenance, bad all been gathered into the Ark during the
seven days of embarkation, it was Yahew who closed the
door of the Ark and shut them in, thus sheltering them
from the catastrophe which broke upon the earth in all
its fury: from the raging of the elements and from the
blind rage no doubt of a wicked generation whose sins
had finally found them out (Num. 32:23, Gal. 6:7). (I
am reminded of the title of a sermon by a preacher friend,
“What Happened to the Carpenters who Helped Noah
Build the Ark?”) Noah could-and did- build the Ark
according to the specifications God had given him, he
could receive the animals who came to him for deliverance
from the Flood, he could spend 120 years warning the
ungodly antediluvian world of the terrible judgment about
to descend upon them, and calling them-all in vain-to
repentance and reformation of life, but when in God’s
time-clock the period of probation came to its end, it
was God Himself, and o d y God, who could close t h e door
of the Refuge provided by His grace for the eight souls
whom He found worthy of His mercy (cf. Deut. 33:27;
Psa, 46:1, 62:7, 94:22; Jer. 16:19).
13. The Einbarkafioiz
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life the Ark was
completed (7:6). Note 7:4--“for yet seven days,” that
is, after seveiz days: in this interim the embarkation was
begun and completed, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s
life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the
month, on the same day were all the fountains of the
great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were
545
 GENESIS
opened” ( 7 : 1 1 ) . The Flood was upon the world. God’s
judgments on the unbelieving and the impenitent may be
delayed by His longsuffering grace, but they are inevitable
(cf. 2 Pet, 2:4-10).
:!. :b :b :b *
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
N e w Testament V i t n e s s to t h e Genesis Narrative of
t h e Flood
The applications of the Genesis account of the Flood
to Christian teaching and life, as found in the New Testa-
ment, are most significant, as follows: 1 . It is referred to
as evidence of God’s judgment and justice ( 2 Pet. 2:4-10,
cf. Psa. 89:14, Gal. 6 : 7 - 8 ) . 2. It is referred to us a warn-
i n g of our Lord’s Second Cowing (Matt. 24:37-39, Luke
17:26-30). 3 . It is referred to as a n example of t h e f a i t h
t h a t leads to salvation (Heb. 11:7, Jas. 2:14-26). 4. It
is referred t o as prototypical in certain respects of t h e
Gospel Plan of Salvation (1 Pet. 3:19-21: note the phrase,
A.S.V., “after a true likeness”; A.S.V. marginal, “in the
antitype”; A.V., “the like figure”; R.S.V., “baptism, which
corresponds to this”). In this Scripture we are told that
through the Holy Spirit, Christ went and preached unto
the spirits in prison, that is, in the prison-house of sin
(Isa. 42:7, 6 1 : 1 ) , when the longsuffering of God waited in
the days of Noah “while the ark was a preparing.” (It
seems obvious that the Divine message was communicated
to the antediluvian world through Noah who, consequently,
is called “a preacher of righteousness” to those of his own
time, 2 Pet. 2:5.) (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:21, Rom. 10:6-17, 1
Thess. 2 : 1 3 ) .
Aizalogies Between NoaJYs Deliverance and Salvatim in
Chd
The following analogies between Noah’s deliverance
from “the world of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 2 : ~ )and our
deliverance from the guilt and consequences of sin on the
546
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
terms of the New Covenant (“the keys of the kingdom
of heaven,” Matt, 16:19; cf. Eph. 1:13, Rom. 10:16, 2
Thess, 1:8, 1 Pet. 4:17), are clearly indicated in Scripture
as follows: 1. Noah was saved by t h e grace of God (Gen,
6:8-grace is w w e r i t e d favor) ; so are we haved by grace.
No man was ever saved by virtue of his own merits;
salvation is, without exception, a n outpouring of Divine
grace, It is through the grace of God that redemption
has been provided for fallen mail (Tit. 2: 11, Eph. 2:8,
John 3:16), 2, Noah was saved by faith: so are we. (Heb.
11:6, 7; Rom. 5 : l ; Mark 16:16; John 20:30-31). We are
not saved by faith ulom, but by faith as t h e continuous
principle which motivates us to repentance, obedience, and
good works (Jas. 2: 14-26). 3, Noah was saved by godly
fear, Moved by godly fear, he prepared an ark to the
saving of his house (Heb. 11: 7 ) , Likewise, when we are
moved by godly sorrow, by the awareness of God’s good-
ness, we turn from darkness to light and from the power
of Satan unto God: this is repentuizce. ( 2 Cor. 5 : 11, Heb.
10:31, Rom, 2:4, 2 Cor. 7:10, Luke 13:3, Acts 17:30,
Matt. 12:41; Jonah 3:8, Isa, 55:7, Acts 2 6 : 1 8 ) . 4. Noah
and his house were saved i%‘/3yoibgh water, the transitional
element through which they passed from t h e world of
the ungodly into a world cleansed of its wickedness. The
antitype is Christian baptism, immersion (Rom. 6:4-6,
1 Pet, 3:19-21, Acts 2:38-47, Gal. 3:27, Matt. 28:18-20).
In each of t h e nine cases of conversion recorded in the
book of Acts specific mention is made that those who
obeyed the Gospel were baptized. For all accountable
human beings, baptism was, and is, t h e line which divides
the world and the church, the kingdom of Satan and the
Kingdom of Christ, When Jesus had expired on the Cross,
one of the Roman soldiers pierced His side with n spear,
and out of the wound came blood and water (John 19 : 3 4 ) ,
M e are saved, if saved a t all, by the efficacy of Christ’s
blood which was shed for the sin of t h e world (John 1:29,
s 47
 GENESIS
1 John I :7) and the only place divinely appointed where
the penitent believer meets the efficacy of that blood is
the grave of water (baptism): cf. Rom. 6:l-7,Gal. 3:27.
Water is the transitional element through which the be-
lieving penitent passes from Satan’s authority, the kingdom
of this world, into the jurisdiction (reign, authority) of
Christ, the Kingdom of God’s Son (Col. 1:13, 2 Cor, 44,
Eph. 2 : 2 ) . Hence we are baptized into the name, that is,
into the authority, into the jurisdiction, of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28: 19). Al-
though baptism involves the moral virtue of obedience,
it is indicative essentially of this change of relationsb@
(Gal. 3:27), Baptism is the institution in which Divine
grace and human faith meet together, and the Divine
promise inseparably linked to it for the obedient believer
is remission of sins (Acts 2:38) a N o doubt this is the
reason why it has been so persistently attacked by Satan
throughout our entire Christian era, by Satan acting
through human agency, and in particular through church-
men, who have ignored it, distorted it, belittle it, ridiculed
it, and actually blasphemed it and the Lord who ordained
it, Because it stands here, a t the entrance to the church,
the ordinance which marks the dividing line between the
world and the church, it is against this ordinance that
Satan has directed his most vicious and unrelenting war-
fare, Men still call baptism “a mere outward act,” “a
mere external performance,” etc. When in the name of
all that is holy did our Lord ever go into the business of
setting u p “mere outward acts” or “mere external per-
formances,” or “mere” anything? 5 . Noah was saved
through the instrumentality of the Ark. The ark points
forward both to Christ and to the Church: to be in
Christ is to be in the Church, which is the Body of Christ
(Gal, 3:27,Rom. 8:1, 2 Cor, 5:17y Eph. 1:22-23, Col.
1: 1 8 ) . 6. To summarize: Noah was not saved by. grace
alone, nor by faith alone, nor by repentance alone, nor by
5 48
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
the water alo~ze,nor by the Ark alone, but by all of those
as constituting the total Divine plan of deliverance,
Similarly, in the Christian Dispensation, we are not saved
by faith aloize, nor by repentance fllOlZC, nor by baptism
rlZon.e, nor by the church d o v e , but by all these taken to-
gether as constituting the Gospel Plan of Salvation. And
even to these must be added the essentials of the Spiritual
Life, because life, in any form, is growth, and where there
is no growth, thre is only stagnation and death. “EternaI
security” is realized only by God and His saints working
together, in God’s way, and according to God’s plan.
(Acts 2:42; 2 Pet. 3:18, 1:5-11; Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Cor.
15:JS; Gal, J:22-25; Rom. 14:17; Heb. 12:14, etc.).
Analogies Betweeiz the Ark and the Church
We do not insist here that Scripture specifically declares
the Ark to have been a type of the Church. We simply
call attention to many interesting, and meaningful, an-
alogies between the two institutions (Rom. l J : 4 ) , as
follows: 1. The Ark was made of gopher wood through-
out; that is to say, of one and only one kind of material
(Gen. 6:14). Similarly, the Church, the Body of Christ
is made up of just one kind of material-baptized penitent
believers (Eph, 2:19-22, 2:lO; 1 Pet. 2 : l - J ; Acts 2:38-47,
8 ~ 1 2 ,8:34-39, 10:47-48, 16:14-1J, 1 6 ~ 3 1 - 3 4 ,1 8 : 8 , 22:16;
Rom, 1O:P-10, 6:1-11; John 3 : J ; Col. 2 : l l - 1 2 ; Gal. 3:26-
2 7 ) . Christ has but one Body, the Church (John 10:16,
17:20-21; Eph. 4:4-6, Matt, 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:12). In
our days, it is common to exhort a man “to join the
church of his choice.” But this is nonsense from the
Scriptural point of view, for two reasons: (1) no man
joins” church: instead, he obeys the Gospel commands
and then the Lord adds him to His Church (Acts 2 : 4 7 ) ;
( 2 ) our Lord has established the Church, His Body, in
which salvation is to be enjoyed, and has given us t h e
pattern of this Church in the apostolic writings (Acts
1 : l - 3 ; John 14:26, 16:13-15; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jude 3 ; 2 Tim.
5 49
 GENESIS
3:16-17). This Church is the one Body of Christ; He
purchased her with His own precious blood (Eph. 4:4,
Matt. 16:16, Eph. 5:23, Acts 20:28). In a word, the
choice of Church has already been made by our Lord, the
Head (Eph. 1:20-23). There is no salvation in denom-
inationalism; salvation is possible only by one’s living and
dying in Christ (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 8:1, Rev. 14:13), and
to live and die in Christ is to live and die in the true
Church. 2. There was one window in the Ark. (Note
how this differs from the usual pictorial representations
of the vessel as a kind of flatboat with windows on all
sides like portholes.) Just what this was, and how it
was built into the vessel has always been a matter of some
speculation. The consensus seems to be that it was an
opening of some kind extending around the top of the
Ark constructed either to reach within a cubit of the
edge of the roof or a cubit below the roof (Gen. 6:16).
A window is the medium through which light shines into
a building from an outside source. The Word (Bible) is
the window through which the Holy Spirit provides
spiritual light for the Church (1 Cor. 2:9-11; Psa. 119:105,
130; 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 10:6-11). We have so many
denominations in Christendom simply because men have
added so many windows. The Holy Spirit, shining into
a man’s heart through the Bible alone, will make nothing
more nor less than a Christian (Acts 11:26, 26:28; 1 Pet.
4:16; Col. 3:17; Acts 4:11-12). 3. There was one door
in the Ark (6:16). Christ is the Door to the Church
(John 10:7, 9 ) . Faith, repentance, confession lead unto
the Door (Rorn. 10:10, Matt. 10:32-33, 2 Cor. 7:lO);
baptism leads into the Door (Gal. 3:27). (It is equally
true, of course, that all of these taken together induct
one iiito the Door.) T o be in Christ is to be in the Door
and in the Church (Acts 2:47). 4. Clean aizimals went
into the Ark first. Jews were admitted to the Church
first (John 1:11, Acts 2:5-7, Rom. 1:16), 5 , U.lzclean
750
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
animals were taken in last, Simjlarly, Gentiles were ad-
mitted to the Cliurch several years after Pentecost (Acts
10, 11:1-18, 15:7-11), 6, When all the occupants were
inside the Ark, it was Yahwe who closed the door, The
door to the Church was opened on Pentecost and stands
wide open today; nor will it be closed until the Lord comes
again. He alone has the authority (that is, moral power,
the right) to open the Door of the Church and to close
it, And when He shall close it, it will be closed forever.
And, as in the days of Noah, so shall it be a t the coming
of the Soli of man (Matt. 24:37, Luke 17:26), the cry
of the ungodly, shut out forever from the presence of
God, will be the cry of uncontrollable despair. So intense
will be their sense of loss t h a t they will cry for the rocks
and the mountains to fall upon thela and hide them froin
the righteous wrath of Eternal Holiness (Rev. 6 : 16-17,
Matt. 25:31-46, John 5:28-29, 1 Cor. 15:50-57).
:k :) :: :: ::.

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-ONE

1. What were the two classes in t h e mora1 world before
the Flood?
2. What general condition precipitated the Divine Judg-
ment on the antediIuvian world?
3. How can i t be said t h a t God “changes because He is
unchangeable”?
It. How is God’s rej)ciitaiicc to be explained?
5. What is meant by t h e j ~ b y ~ i c nworld
l before the Flood?
6, What might be the import of the Hebrew word rrrt-s
in relation to the extent of the Flood?
7. Summarize what Dr. Jauncey has to say about t h e
extent of the Flood.
8. Suininarize what B. S. Dean has to say about this
problem.
9. What are Ramin’s argunmits against t h e universal-
Flood theory?
551
 GENESIS
10. Summarize Archer’s review of Ramm’s arguments.
11. List Mitchell’s remarks about the extent of the Flood.
12. State the gist of Milligan’s treatment of the subject.
13. State Archer’s three objections t o the view that only
a part of the race perished in the Deluge.
14. State Morris’ argument for the universality of the
Flood.
1s. Give his summary of the “geologic implications” of
the Genesis account.
16. What is the theory of uniformitarianism?
17. Can this theory be extended to explain anything more
than changes in the permanently fashioned earth?
18. Show why it cannot be used to explain the origin of
the earth.
19. Summarize Rehwinkel’s account of the earth and its
inhabitants prior to the Flood. On what does he
base his conclusions?
20. Summarize the seven arguments for a universal Flood
as presented by Morris and Whitcomb.
21. What are the four Biblical reasons which they give
to support their view?
22. What two reasons do they give for maintaining that
the human race could not have been confined to the
Mesopotamian region prior to the Deluge?
23. Review the objections to the view that we have in
the Genesis narrative “parallel accounts” of the Flood.
24. What is meant by the repetitive characteristic of the
Old Testament writings?
25. How universal are the traditions of the Flood?
2 6. What conclusions are we to derive from this univer-
sality?
27. List the similarities between the Babylonian and
Genesis accounts of the Flood.
28. List the differences. What do the Jewish authors,
Kaufmann and Cornfeld, have to say about these
differences?
s 52
 THE WORLD UNDER T H E FLOOD
29, What is Unger’s general conclusion about the origin
of the Genesis account?
3 0, Is there any justification for ignoring the revelatory
work of the Spirit of God in this case? Why, then,
is it ignored by so many so-called “scholars”?
3 1, State the physiographic causes of the Flood.
3 2, Identify the successive stages in the increase of t h e
Flood,
’ 33, How many persons went into the Ark, and who were
I they?
1 34. How many pairs of each kind of clean animals went
into the Ark? How many pairs of each kind of
unclean animals?
35. What probable needs were there for the greater num-
ber of clean animals?
3 6. What is the probable meaning of the phrases, “two
of every sort,” “two and two” or “by twos”?
3 7. What other material completed the Ark’s cargo?
3 8. What is the probable meaning of the term “kind”
in this classification?
39. Compare this classification of kinds as given in the
Flood story with that of the Creation narrative (Gen,
1:24).
40. What are the objections to the view t h a t only domes-
ticated animals were taken into the Ark?
41. What probably was the capacity of the A r k ?
42. What were the dimensions of it?
43. How do you suppose it was possible for eight persons
to feed and provide drink for all the animals on
board for so long a time, probably more than a year?
44. How could they have cleansed t h e vessel?
45. How do you suppose the Ark could have accommo-
dated the natural increase of the animals on board?
46, Could hibernation be a solution for these troublesome
questions?
553
 GENESIS
47. What were the characteristics of a clean animal in
Old Testament times?
48. How did this distinction between clean and unclean
animals arise? When, and in connection with what
institution, must it have originated?
49. Why do we say that this distinction must have been
a positive law?
5 0. What is the distinction between a moral law and a
positive law?
5 1. List the supernatural elements in the Genesis account
of the Deluge.
52. How do we account for the assembling of the ani-
mals a t one time to enter the Ark?
53. With what two other crucial events in God’s Cosmic
Plan is the Flood to be associated?
54. How did Peter apply the story of the Flood as evi-
dence of God’s unfailing justice?
5 5 . What does the writer of Hebrews tell us about Noah’s
faith?
5 6. How did Jesus associate the Flood story with the
circumstances of His Second Coming?
57. List the analogies between Noah’s deliverance from
the wicked antediluvian world and our deliverance
from the bondage of sin under the New Covenant.
58. What factors entered into Noah’s deliverance? What
factors enter into our salvation through the atoning
blood of Christ?
59. In what sense did water as the transitional element
through which Noah’s deliverance was accomplished
typify Christian baptism? Where is the Scripture
to be found which states this truth?
60. In what sense was Noah saved “through water”?
61. What is the design of baptism in God’s Eternal
Purpose?
6 2 . Why is this ordinance downgraded, even belittled and
blasphemed, by churchmen?
5 54
 THE WORLD UNDER THE FLOOD
63, What do we inean by saying t h a t in baptism Divine
grace and human faith find a meeting place?
64, What does God promise us through our obedience in
baytisin (Acts 2: 3 8 ) .
65. List the aiialogies between Christ and the Church,
66. How many windows in the Ark? How does t h e
Scripture representation of the Ark differ from pic-
torial representations of it as a Bind of flatboat with
windows all around it like portholes?
67. How many doors did the Ark have?
68. What function is served by a window? How many
windows in the Church?
69. Show how window-adding by human authority has
divided Christendom,
70. Who is the Door to the Fold (the Church) ?
77. What are the Scripture requirements for entrance into
this Door?
72. What people were first admitted to t h e Church of
Christ? Who were last to be admitted? How are
these facts analogous to the reception of the animals
into the Ark?
73. When the entire cargo of living beings and accom-
panying stowage had been gathered into the Ark,
who closed the door?
74, Who only has the authority t o open and to close the
Door of the Church?
75. Has our Lord Himself chosen t h e Church through
which salvation will be enjoyed? Where is the pattern
of this Church to be found?
76. Is this Church a denomination of any kind? When
and by whom will the Door t o the Church of Christ
be closed for ever?
77. What will be the ultimate destiny of those left outside?
78. What, according to Scripture (2 Pet, 3 : l - 1 3 ) , will
be the character of the next-and last-universal
judgment ?
5YJ
 PART TWENTY-TWO:
THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
(Gem 8:l-22, 9 : l - 2 9 )
1. The Subsidence of the Flood ( 8 :1-14).
“And God remembered Noah, and all the beasts, and
all the cattle that were with him in the ark: and God
made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters
assuaged; 2 the fountains also o f the deep and the windows
of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven wm
restrained; 3 and the waters returned from off the earth
continually: and after the end of a hundred and f i f t y
days, the waters decreased. 4And the ark rested in the
seventh month, ma the seventeenth day of the month, upon
the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased
continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month,
on the first day of the month, were the tops of the moun-
tains seen, 6 And it came to pass Gt the end of forty days,
that Noah opened the window of the ark which he bad
made: 7 and he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to
and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the
earth. 8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if
the waters were abated from o f f the face of the ground;
9 but the dove found no rest f o r the sole of her foot,
and she returned unto him to the ark: for the waters
were on the face of the whole earth: and he put forth
his hand, and took her, and brought her in unto him into
the ark. IO And he stayed yet other seven days; and
again be sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11 and the
dove came in to him a t eventide; and, lo, in her mouth
an olive-leaf plucked o f f : so Noah knew that the waters
were abated from o f f the earth. 12 And he stayed yet
other seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she rehmsd
not again unto him arzy more. 13 And it came to pms
in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the
first day o f the month, the waters were dried up from off
5 56
 I

THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD

the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the Ark,
and looked, a?td, behold the face of the ground wis dried.
14 Aid in the second month, off the seven and twen#tieth
day of the month, was the earth dry.”
2. The Chron.ology of the Flood,
(1) Noah entered the Ark on the 17th day of the
second month of the 600th year of his life (7:11), The
earth was found to be dry on the 27th day of the second
month of the 601st year of his life (8:14). O n the basis
of a thirty-day month, this means that the duration of
the Flood was 371 days. (This total is computed as
follows: Of the 600th year of Noah’s life, the 14 remain-
ing days of the second month must be added to the 300
days of the next ten months; that is, 314 days in all.
[Note that Noah removed the covering of the Ark on the
first day of the first month of the next (601st) year of
Noah’s life (8:13), hence it follows that 314 days elapsed
between the entrance into the Ark, and the removal of
the covering of the Ark.] Now, of the 601st year of
Noah’s life, to the first month of 30 days must be added
the 27 days of the second month, that is, 57 days in all.
The two figures, 314 days and 57 days, give us a total of
371 days of Noah’s life that were spent in the Ark.
These figures serve as a framework for determining the
details that we get, on breaking down the various phases
of the duration of the Flood.)
(2) These 371 days break down into two general parts:
the period of “prevailing” (7:24) and the period of
“assuaging’’ or abating (8 :1) ,
( 3 ) The period of “prevailing” began with torrential
rains extending over a period of 40 days (7:12); then
followed an additional rise of the waters for 110 days (as
a consequence of the awesome terrestrial, oceanic, seismic,
and stratospheric forces that were unleashed) ; that is, 150
days in all (7:24),
5 57
 GENESIS
( 4 ) The period of abating ( 8 : l ) included a phase of
decrease which extended from the 17th day of the seventh
month to the 1st day of the tenth month (8:4-5), that
is, 1 3 plus 30 plus 30 plus 1, or 74 days in all; an additional
forty days until Noah sent forth the raven, (8 :6-7) ; then
seven days (by implication of the phrase, v. 10, “other
seven days”) until he sent forth the dove the first time
( 8 : 8 ) , another seven days until he sent forth the dove a
second time ( 8 : 10-1 1 ) , and still another seven days until
he sent forth the dove the third and last time (8:12).
It will thus be seen that we have now accounted for 150
plus 7 4 plus 40 plus 21 days, or 285 in all. But the
chronology of Noah’s life, as given above, in which we
find that 314 days elapsed between the entering into the
Ark and the removal of the covering of the Ark (8:13)
indicates a period of 29 days between these two events
(314 minus 285 days: cf. again 7:11 and 8:13). And
it was ~7 days after this that the whole earth was found
to be dry enough for the disembarkation (8:14). (It
should be noted that only “the face of the ground” was
found to be dry when the covering of the Ark was re-
moved, 8 :1 3 ) . Adding all these figures, 40 plus 110 plus
74 plus 40 plus 21 plus 29 plus 57, we have a total of
371 days between the occupancy of the Ark and the with-
drawal therefrom. (See E. F. Kevan, NBD, 4 2 7 ) .
( 5 ) There certainly is a noticeable lack of any dis-
crepancy in these various figures. For example: (a) After
the waters had “prevailed upon the earth” 150 days, they
began to “assuage” ( 8 : l ) . (b) O n the same day the
Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat (Urartu of
Assyrian inscriptions) between the lakes of Van and Urmia.
That is, the 17th day of the seventh month, the day on
which the A r k came to rest (8:4) was exactly 150 days
after the Flood began on the 17th day of the second month
( 7 : l l ) . (Note well: The circumstances that, from the
beginning of rainfall to the grounding of the Ark on
558
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
seems not to be an insoluble problem, Evidently they re-
turned to the sources whence they came, that is, all that
were not congealed in polar icecaps and glacial beds, or
buried in newly formed subterranean seas, But-1s there
enou,glh wafer 011, our $lam$ t o couer the eiztire earth?
Eminent authorities tell us: ( a ) t h a t the proportion of
land area to water area on the earth is about three-tenths
to seven-tenths (that is, there is more than twice as much
water as land); (b) that the average depth of the ocean
is twelve times the average height of the land surface
(hence, if deeper parts of the ocean and the highest eleva-
tions of land were brought to an average level, a world-
wide ocean that would cover the entire earth to the depth
of one and one-half miles would be produced); ( c ) that,
moreover, if the water now stored in the form of ice a t
the polar icecaps and glacial beds were released, the volume
of the ocean would be raised by one hundred and fifty
feet; (d) that if in addition to all these changes, there
were others o f a cataclysmic nature, such as the rise of
sea beds and the sinking of continents, there is no difficulty
whatever to find enough water for a flood that would
cover the whole earth. And it must be remembered that
even though God apparently unleashed natural forces in
bringing on the Flood, the fact still remains that the
phenomenon as a whole was essentially supernatural in
character. We do not propose here to set limits to the
power of God nor to enter into a controversy with the
Lord Jesus Christ. We see no reason for assuming, how-
ever, that the Genesis Flood was in any respect a violation
of the natural fact that “the water cycle on our planet
operates in a closed system.”
( 9 ) God remeinbered Noah avd alC the creatures with
him in the Ark. ( 8 : 1). Eange (CDHCG, 3 0 9 ) : “God
has always remembered Noah-but mow he remembers
him in a special sense-that he may accomplish his de-
liverance. There comes a turn in the flood, and the ground
561
 GENESIS
of it lay in the government of God. T o the rule of
judgment upon the human world, succeeds the rule of
compassion for the deliverance of Noah and humanity, as
also of the animal-world. It is his compassion, not simply
his grace. For God also remembered the beasts.” God
remembers the survivors in mercy (cf. Gen. 19:29, 30:22).
God remembers man’s sins when He punishes them (cf.
Ps. 25 :7), and the needs of His people when He supplies
them (Neh. 5 : 1 9 ) , One wonders if Noah, throughout
all those dark days in the Ark, did not become depressed
by a feeling that God must have forgotten him. (Cf.
the words of Moses, Num. 11:11-15; those of Habakkuk
the prophet [1:2-4]; those of the Psalmist, 44:24; and
especially the cry of Jesus from the Cross, Matt. 27:46).
But “even when we seem lost to everything else we are
not lost to God.” In Whittier’s words:
“I only know I cannot drift
Beyond His love and care.”
And God also remembered the animals with Noah in the
Ark, “a touching indication of the tenderness of God
toward His creatures.” Skinner (ICCG, 16 5 ) : “The inclu-
sion of the animals in the kindly thought of the Almighty
is a touch of nature which should not be overlooked.”
(Cf. Deut. 25:4; Psa. 36:6, 145:9, 15, 16; Jonah 4 : l l ) .
The passage is anthropomorphic, of course, essentially an-
thropopathic: it has been said rightly that “the most God
could do for man was to supply him with an anthropo-
morphic image of Himself ,”
( l o ) The Raven and the Dove. The raven, an unclean
bird, a bird of prey capable of sustaining itself by feeding
on carrion, was a creature especially fitted for the mission
imposed upon it. This bird was evidently so named be-
cause of its black color (cf. Prov. 30:17, Song of Sol.
5:11) : note the Latin equivalent Corvus. There are
numerous references to the dove in Scripture (e+, Lev.
5 62
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
7:7, 12:6 [its use for sacrificial purposes]; Psa, 68:13
[its beautiful plumage]; Psa. 7 5 : 6 [its power of flight];
Isa, 38:14, 59:11 [its plaintive cry]; Matt, 10:16 [its
gentleness]), The dove is also an emblem of the purity
and gentleness of the Holy Spirit: cf, Matt. 3:16-17,
Luke 3:21-22, John 1:32-34, Acts 10:38, Owen (DHS,
46): “At the beginning of the old creation, the Spirit of
God moved on the waters, cherishing and communicating
a prolific, vivifying quality to the whole, as a dove gently
moves upon its eggs, communicating vital heat; so a t the
new creation, He comes as a dove upon Him who was
the immediate author of it,” Skinner (ICCG, 176) :
“The description of the return and admission of the dove
is unsurpassed ... for tenderness and beauty of imagina-
tion.” Note also the account of the freshly plucked olive-
leaf (8:11). The olive tree did not grow a t great altitudes,
and is said t o have flourished even under water. The olive
branch is frequently mentioned in ancient literature as an
emblem of peace. Brownville (SHS, 2 3 ) : “As John de-
scribes the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a
dove, he distinctly says that the Spirit is to remain as an
abiding presence in Him [Christ: cf. John 1:29-341.
Referring back to the experience of Noah, we remember
that when the window of the ark was opened for the
third time and the dove sent forth, it did not return but
went to its abiding-place on the cleansed earth. Thus
the Holy Spirit did not go back into heaven, but abode
in Jesus in all His fullness. This fullness of the Spirit was
His not only at: all times in the Incarnation, but eternally;
we cannot divide the Trinity of the Godhead. But here
it is manifest, that we might believe and understand.”
Marsh (EHS, 9-18): “Noah’s dove came forth from the
ark. God’s Dove came from heaven. There are two
thoughts suggested by this. As the dove came forth from
the ark, the ark being a type of Christ, so the Holy Spirit,
because of what Christ is, and has done, comes forth to
563
 GENESIS
the earth of man’s iniquity; and t o tell him of the only
ark of salvation wherein he can find safety and peace.
The lighting of the Holy Spirit on Christ as the Dove
proclaims two things; first, He could come as the Dove
on the Lamb of God, for there was a correspondence be-
tween the spotlessness of God’s Lamb and the gentleness
of God’s Dove. Second, He came upon Christ as the
Dove, to qualify Him for his ministry, and to act through
H i m in blessing to others.” Again: “What were the
results from the sending forth of the dove from the ark,
and the coming of the Spirit upon Christ? There were
three sendings forth of the dove from the ark. The first
time it found no rest for the sole of its feet, and returned
to the ark. Josephus says that ‘the dove came back to
Noah with her wings and feet all muddy.’ May we not
take this as illustrative of the fact that in all the missions
of the Spirit, from the Fall to the coming of Christ, He
always had to bear testimony to man’s sin and iniquity?
..
. The second time the dove came back to the ark with
an olive-leaf in its mouth, which is significantly said to
be ‘plucked off.’ The word means, to be freshly torn
from the tree. The Hebrew word Taraph comes from a
root which means to tear in- pieces, and is generally used
to describe the action of wild beasts in rending their prey
to pieces. It is rendered ‘rent in pieces’ in Gen. 3 7 : 3 3 ,
where Jacob takes it for granted that Joseph had been
killed by a wild beast when he sees blood-stained garments
of Joseph. The same root is given as ‘ravening’ in Psalms
22:13, where Christ speaks of the wicked who were sur-
rounding Him like a lot of wild beasts. Rotherham
translates this verse, ‘They have opened wide their mouth,
a lion rending and roaring.’ Putting these Scriptures to-
gether, do they not suggest to us the thought, that as the
olive-leaf was torn off, and the dove bore in its mouth
this emblem of peace, so the Holy Spirit bears testimony
to the death of Christ, Who was ‘cut off’ out of the land
5 64
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
of the living for our transgressions, and now proclaims that
Christ has made peace by t h e blood of His cross? The
third time the dove came forth from the ark it did not
return, It had found a resting-place,, So with t h e Holy
Spirit, He had gone to and fro from the presence o f the
Lord, in Old Testament times, finding no resting-place,
but when He beheld the One in Whom God delighted,
then He rested upon Him. The first three gospels mention
that the Spirit descended or lighted upon Christ; but
John adds, the Spirit ‘abode’ upon Him. The Greek word
w e i v . ~means to dwell, and is so rendered again and again,
God rested after His creative work; Christ in figure
having accomplished His redemptive work, rests in the
sanctification of God (Heb. 4:lO) ; and now the Spirit
rests upon Christ, henceforth to find His permanent abode
in Him. All His mission emanates from Christ, all His
blessings are found in Him, all His instructions are from
Him, all His ministry is toward Him, all His unfoldings
are about Him, all His aim is to enhance His glory, and all
His working in the believer is to reproduce Him, , ..
Why is the Holy Spirit given to believers? For the same
reason that t h e dove came to Noah, and the Spirit came
upon Christ. First, to assure us thae for us the judgment
of sin is past, for the storm has burst upon Christ and
has exhausted itself upon Him, Second, to take up His
abode in the mystical body of Christ through our union
with the Head, and to impart His nature and infuse His
grace in every part. .. , We can only rise to the dove-
like character as we have the fullness of the Dove-like
Indweller,” This author goes on to name the chief
characteristics of the dove as purity (Song of S. 2:14,
6 : 8 - 9 ; cf. Eph. $:22-23, John 3 : 2 9 ; Rev. 21:2, 22:17,
2 Cor. 11:2; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 2 : $ ; Gal. $ : 2 2 - 2 5 ) ; as
cleaiiwess, hence suitable for sacrifice; as gentleitess of
manner (cf. Matt. 5 : 3 , 5 , 9 ; 10:16; Rom. 8 : 9 ) ; and as
$61
 GENESIS
constancy (cf. Rom. 1 2 : l ; 1 Cor. 1 5 : 5 8 ; Rev. 2:7, 11,
17; 3:3, 12, 2 1 ) . (Doves, we are told, are strictly mono-
gamous). “The very fact that the dove could be offered
in sacrifice is proof that it was a clean bird. Two of the
characteristics of a clean bird were that it could fly and
that it did not feed upon flesh. All grain-feeding birds
that did not feed upon flesh were clean. The difference
between a raven and the dove is plainly to be seen in the
two which were sent out of the ark. The raven did not
come back into the ark; it undoubtedly found carrion
outside upon which to feed; but the dove was forced by
the necessity of hunger to come back to Noah. The Holy
Spirit is very particular about the food upon which H e
feeds. His one aim and ministry is associated with the
Word of God. He finds His satisfaction in making known
the message God has given Him to reveal. He is the
Inditer of the Word, and He is also the Explainer of it”
(Marsh, EHS, 1 8 ) . Biederwolf (HSHS, 178) : “Think
of the many beautiful characteristics of a dove. How
lovely was the character of Jesus because of these dove-like
traits, sweet-tempered and gentle, yet just like Him may
we be. There is gentleness, tenderness, loveliness, innocence,
mildness, peace, purity, patience-all this and more for
him in whose heart is made a place for the dove-like Spirit
to nestle.” J. W. McGarvey (FG, 86) : “The dove suggests
purity, gentleness, peace, etc. In fact the nature of the
bird makes it a fit emblem of the Spirit, for it comports
well with the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). The
nations of the earth emblazon eagles upon their banners
and lions upon their shields, but He who shall gather all
nations into His kingdom appears as a Lamb, and his
Spirit appeared under the symbol of a dove. Verily His
kingdom is not of this world. It is a kingdom of peace
and love, not of bloodshed and ambition. Noah’s dove
bore the olive branch, the symbol of peace, and the Holy
5 66
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
Spirit manifested Jesus, God’s olive branch of peace sent
into this world ( h a . 72:7, Luke 2:14, John 14:27, Eph,
2: 11-1 8 ) ,”
(1 1) The Covering of the Ark ( 8 :1 3 ) . Since the word
used here, nzikseh, is used elsewhere only to designate the
third aiid fourth covering of the ark of the testimony
(Exo. 26:14, etc,) and of the holy vessels when the pro-
cession was on the march (Num. 4:8, 1 2 ) , a covering
made of leather and skins, it has been supposed that this
was the kind of covering which Noah removed from the
Ark, or, rather, it would seem from the door of the Ark.
Lange thinks this does not necessarily follow, in view of
the fact that “the deck of an ark on which the rain-storms
spent their force, must surely be of as great stability as
the ark itself” (CDHCG, 3 1 1 ) . The Jerusulein Bible (p.
2 3 ) renders this: “Noah lifted back the hatch of the ark
and looked out. The surface of the ground was dry.”
The hatch is defined, in nautical terms, as the covering
of an opening in the deck: it would seem that in Noah’s
ark the opening must have been the door. Was this cover-
iizg desigfzed to poiizt forward to the Coueriizg (Atone-
meizt) for mads burden of siiz which wus provided by
our Lord up the Cross (John1:29) ?
3 , The Disembarkation ( 8 : 1S - 19 ) ,
r r l j Aiid God spake m t o Noah, suyivg, 16 Go forth
from the ark, thou, avd thy wife, aizd thy S O I I . ~ , a i d thy
sons’ wives with thee. 17 Briiig forth with thee every
living thing that is with thee of all flesh, both birds, uiqd
cattle, and every creeting thifzg thut creepeth upon the
earth; that they wzay breed abundantly i i q the earth, and
be fruitful, aiid nzultiply upoii the earth. 18 Aiid Noah
weizt‘forth, aizd his sous, aizd his wife, aiid his soid wives
with him: 19 every beast, eveyy creekiiig thing, and every
bird, whatsoever inoveth up011 the earth, after their
families, went forth out of the ark.”
67
 GENESIS
(1) N o t e that N o a h obeyed God in every detail. M.
Henry (CWB, 21) : “Noah did not stir until God bade
him. Those only go under God’s protection that follow
God’s direction and submit to his government.” God had
said to Noah, “Come thou and all thy house into the
Ark” (7:1) ; once the occupants were all inside the Ark,
God closed the door (7:16) ; and now that the Flood had
abated and the earth was again ready for re-population,
God spake unto Noah and his house, “Go forth from the
ark” ( 8 : 1 6 ) . Always it was God who directed, and
always Noah obeyed. Again, Henry (CWB, 21) : “Note,
God consults our benefit rather than our desires. We
would go out of the ark before the ground is dried: and
perhaps, if the door be shut, are ready to remove the
covering. God’s time of showing mercy is certainly the
best time, when the mercy is ripe for us and we are ready
for it.”
( 2 ) N o t e s m e interesting facts about No~h’s family:
( I ) The name of Noah’s wife is not given, nor are the
names of the wives of Noah’s sons. Though no mention is
made of the fact specifically, it seems obvious that their
loyalty to their husbands and to God was evidenced by their
obedience. By way of contrast, the names of the women in
the Line of Cain are given, and they are names which
indicate sheer worldliness and irreligiousness (cf. 4:16-24) .
(2) The sons of Noah were Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
The etymology of these names is not certain but they
seem to have the following import: Shem (“name,” ‘‘re-
nown”), H a m (“dark-colored”) , and Japheth (“wide
spreading,” “he enlarges”) . Traditionally Shem has been
regarded the oldest of the three; however, there are au-
thorities who take the position that Japheth was the eldest
and H a m the youngest of the three (cf. 10:21), (See
.
under Part XIX sujrw) ( 3 ) The language of Gen. 9:18-
19 apparently forbids our assumption that Noah sired other
568
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
sons after t h e withdrawal froin the ark; nor is there any
statement made in earlier chapters (especially ch, 5 ) that
Noah begat soiis and daughters, as is made of each of the
patriarchs who preceded him, before the Flood. (4)
Finally, it is most significant-is i t not?-that there is no
indication that either Noah or any of his sons was a
polygamist. This again is evidence of the general piety
which seems to have characterized the Line of Seth. It
seems evident that the men in the Ark respected the
Divine origin and sanctity of the marriage relation. ,
( 3 ) The witlgdirawal f r o m the A r k took place on the
27th day of the second month of the 6Olst year of .Noah’s
life, O n t h a t day Noah and his house, and all creatures
that were with him in the Ark, came forth on dry land,
They had gone into the Ark from a world filled with
debauchery and violence; they came forth from the Ark
into an earth purged by Divine judgment, new and clean,
and bright with opportunity. “The Ark became the
second cradle of the race: from it Noah and his family
went forth to a new probation,”
4. Noah’s Altar (8:20-22).
20 Aiid N o a h budded aii altar u i i t o Jehovah, aiid took
of evei.31 cleaiz beast, and o f every cleaii bird, aiid offered
buriit-of feriiigs on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the
sweet savor; and Jehovah said iiz his heart, I will not again
curse the ground aiiy bore for i n a d s sake, f o r that the
iinagiiiatioiz of i n a d s heart is evil f ronz his youth, neither
will I a g d n smite aii,?i inow every liviyig thing, as I have
done. W h i l e the earth renzaiiietb, seedtiine aizd harvest,
mid cold aizd heat, avd simziizeit and whiter, aiid day and
night shall i i o t cease,”
(1) These few verses are further evidence that Sacrifice
had teen a long-established Divine institution, dating in-
deed as the Bible dates it, from the very fountainhead of
the race and the beginning of true religion (Gen. 4 : l - 8 ) .
5 G9
 GENESIS
( 2 ) Note t h a t Noah’s first act on coming forth from
the Ark was t o worshif, God, and to do so in the manner
and by the means which God had long before ordained.
The means were three, as noted heretofore: the altar, the
sacrifice, and the priesthood. From the beginning these
have been the divinely established elements of true religion.
The altar was a raised structure or mound of natural earth
and stones: not hewn stones, because by Divine ordination
to lift u p a tool on it was to pollute it (Exo. 20:24-26).
In this case, as throughout the Patriarchal Dispensation,
Noah acted as priest (mediator) for his entire household;
for his sacrifice “he took of every clean beast, and of
every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.”
It is important to note, in this connection, that Noah
worshiped God. Had he been a superstitious person, he
would have prostrated himself before the Ark which was
visible; instead he built his altar “unto Jehovah” the in-
visible but living and true God. Noah walked by faith:
and faith knows that the things which are seen are tem-
poral, that only the things which are not seen are eternal
(Heb. 11:2, 2 Cor. 4:18). Note that these were burnt-
offerings, that is, things that ascend, in allusion to the
ascent of the smoke of such offerings to heaven (cf. Judg.
20:40, Jer. 48:15, Amos 4 : l O ) .
( 3 ) N o t e the Divine Soliloquy. (a) The circumstances
of Noah’s offering were of Divine appointment, as evi-
denced by the fact that his service was accepted. “All
religious services which are not perfumed with the odor
of faith are of an ill savor before God” (Calvin). “Jehovah
smelled the sweet savor.’’ Whitelaw (PCG, 132) : “The
meaning is that the sacrifice of the patriarch was as accep-
table to God as refreshing odors are to the senses of a
man; and that which rendered it acceptable was (1) the
feeling from which it sprang, whether gratitude or obed-
ience; ( 2 ) the truths which it expressed-it was tanta-
170
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
mount to an acknowledgment of personal guilt, a devout
recognition of the Divine mercy, an explicit declaration
t h a t he had been saved or could only be saved through
t h e offering up of the life of another, aiid a cheerful
con~ecration of his redeemed life to God; aiid ( 3 ) t h e
great sacrifice of which it was a type,” This Great Sacri-
fice was, of course, the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God for
the sin of the world (John 1:29, Eph. $:2). (b) The
Divine soliloquy which follows (vv. 21-22) is rich in .
overtones. Bowie (IBG, 547-548) : “Few sentences in
Genesis reflect thought as naive as this. God is pleased
with t h e smoke of sacrifice, aiid he begins to feel more
warmly disposed. Like ‘de Lawd’ in The Grew Pastwes,
he resignes himself to recognize t h a t the heart of man
is just about hopeless, It has been evil f r o m his youth.
So the only thing to do was to accept t h e situation and
not put any dependence upon t h e possibility of correcting
matters by another flood. There is something to the credit
of humanity in the person of Noah, aiid that perhaps is all
God can expect. As theology, that is childlike; yet there
is a strange instinctive wisdom in it, just as there is some-
times in the pictures t h a t children draw. There is the
recognition that human sin is incredibly stubborn, that
only a patient God could put up with it, that in spite of
everything he will not visit upon us our deserts. The vision
of what God’s infinite compassion actually went out to do
in Christ is a long way off, but even so the window of
instinctive trust is open in that direction.” Again, the
sentiment is strongly anthropopathic, expressive, it would
seem, of the Divine regret a t so calamitous a judgment on
man as the Deluge was, yet one t h a t had to be, in the
interst of absolute Justice.
5.The Begiriiiiiig of the Begiii.r?iiig A g a i n ( 9 :1-7) ; The
New World-Order. (This last felicitous phrase is borrowed
from Skinner, ICCG, 169) ,
571
 GENESIS
“And G o d blessed N o a h and his sons, and said unto them,
Be f r u i t f u l , arad multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And
t h e fear of y o u and the dread of y o u shall be u p o n every
beast of the earth, aizd upon every bird of the heavens;
with all wherewith the ground teemeth, and all the fishes
of t h e sea, i n t o your hand are t h e y delivered. 3 Every
iiaouing thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green
herb have I giveii you all. 4 B u t flesh with the life there-
of, which is t h e blood thereof, shall ye n o t eat. j Artd
surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require;
a t t h e hand of every beast will I require it: a d a t the
hand of m a i f , even at the hand of every man’s brother,
w i / l 1 require the life o f m a n . 6 Whoso sheddeth man’s
blood, b y inaiz shall his blood be shed; f o r in the image
of God nzade he man. 7 A n d you, be fruitful, and multi-
p/y; bring f o r t h abundantly in the eurth, and multiply
therein.”
( 1 ) The D i h e blessiiig bestowed on Noah and his sons
is an almost verbal repetition of the primeval blessing be-
stowed upon mankind (Gen. 1:28). I t is conferred on
Noah and his sons (and not upon their wives directly)
as the new heads of the race. It is significant also that
here (in contrast to 1:22) animals are not included in
the Divine benediction. Man’s dominion over the animals
is reaffirmed, but now in the form of fear and dread
on their part; “into your hand are they delivered,” that is,
the power of life and death over the subhuman orders is
reestablished in man as lord tenant of the earth. (JB, 2.j’
n.) : “The laws of nature are stabilized again. Aware of
man’s continuing malice God nevertheless preserves what
he himself has made and, in spite of man, will lead it to
the goal that he has determined. In the beginning man
was blessed and was consecrated lord of creation; he is
now blessed and consecrated anew, but his rule is tranquil
Y 72
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
no longer, In this new age mail will be a t war with the
beasts and with his fellows, The peace of Paradise will
not return until ‘the latter days,’ Isa. 11 :6.”
(2) The m i t r a l iiijiuzction here is the authorization of
t h e eating of animal flesh for food: (‘every moving thing
that liveth shall be food for you” (thus excluding such
as had died of themselves or teen slain by other beasts:
c f , Exo, 22 :3 1, Lev, 2 2 : 8 ) , We see no reason for assum-
ing, as some commentators do, that man had been per-
mitted only a vegetarian diet prior to the Flood: Skinner,
for instance, speaks of the “central injunction” here as
the ((removal of the prohibition of animal food.” Where
is any such prohibition to be found in previous chapters
of Genesis? Certainly 1:29-30, while expressly authoriz-
ing vegetarian food, does not in itself exclude the eating
of meat, (But what about the expression, 9 : 3 , “as the
green herb I have given you all”? The JB renders it:
“Every living and crawling thing shall provide food for
you, no less than the foliage of plants.” This makes sense).
The view t h a t animal food was permitted prior to the
Flood is supported by the following matters. (a) the dis-
tinction between clean and unclean animals (this certainly
implies some correlation between the more hygienic kinds
of animal flesh and the use of i t for food) ; (b) the Ian-
guage of 1:29 does not explicitly forbid the use of animal
flesh for food; (c) shortly after the Fall, animals by
Divine direction were slain for sacrifice, and hence prob-
ably for food also (by no means an unwarrantable infer-
ence from Gen. 4:4); (d) the sufficient reason for
emphasis on t h e authorization of animal food in 9 : 3 is
t h a t it is subjoined with the restrictions which follows
( 9 : 4 ) ; however, it affords no ground for assuming the
existence of previous limitations; (e) if the eating of
animal flesh was supposed to heighten human sensuality
(“carnality”) , certainly vegetarianism thought to have
573
 GENESIS
been practised exclusively before the Flood, was no less
productive of the same effect, as evident from the licen-
tiousness and violence of the Line of Cain. We find no
reason, therefore, for assuming that the human race was
by Divine ordination or by any other authority restricted
to a vegetarian diet before the Flood or after that event.
( 3 ) The Law Prohibiting the EatiHg of Blood ( 9 : 4 ) ,
that is, the eating of flesh from which the blood has not
been properly drained. This prohibition, supposed to have
been enjoined on all peoples through Noah who preceded
Abraham by some ten generations (hence as universal in
scope as the Rainbow Covenant), was later incorporated
in the Mosaic legislation (Lev. 3:17, 7:26-27, 17:lO-14,
19:26; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Deut. 15:23), and subse-
quently was imposed upon Gentile converts to Christianity
by the authority of the Holy Spirit and the Apostles (Acts
15:2l, 28-29). Among the reasons for the original pro-
mulgation of this law undoubtedly were the following:
( a ) the desire to guard against cruelty to animals; (b)
the design to protect human life by demonstrating the
inviolability which attaches in God’s sight even to the
lives of lower animals; (c) the intention to emphasize the
sanctity of all life as God’s most precious gift; (d) the
design to point up the intimate connection between the
blood and the life which subsists even in the animal world
(cf. Lev. 17:lO-13); (e) the design to emphasize espe-
cially its symbolic use in relation to atonement for sin
(Heb. 9:22). Is not this law intended to enforce the truth
in a special way that all life is sacred and must be restored
to God before the flesh can be eaten? (W. Robertson
Smith (RSFI, 3 3 8 ) suggests that this law originally may
have been directed, a t least in part, against the super-
stition that by eating the blood in which is the life of the
totem animal, the worshiper appropriated the life and
shared the attributes of the god thus worshiped.)
74
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
(4) The L a w agaiiisf Murder (9: 1-7), (Murder is
rightly defined as the taking of another man’s life on
one’s own authority and with malice aforethought) , (a)
Vhoso sheddeth, i,e,, wilfully and unwarrantedly, and not
simply accideiztally (manslaughter, Nuin. 3 5 :11), or
jwdjcial/y, for t h a t is ordained here by the wording of
tlie law itself, (Man’s blood, literally the blood of m a n ) ,
Bg’ maii shall his blood be shed: Whitelaw (PCG, 141):
“Not openly and directly by God, but by man himself,
acting of course as God’s instrument and agent-an in-
struction which involved the setting up of the magisterial
office by whom the sword might be borne.’’ (The law
here certainly harks back to the principle of blood wuenge
which had existed from the beginning [as implicit in the
words of Cain, Gen. 4:14-15] and has continued t o be
practised for many centuries among primitive peoples,
although in the verse before us the manner of execution is
not specified. According to this procedure, when a mur-
der was committed, the victim’s relatives, usually by di-
* rection of the elders of the tribe, were bound to retaliate
by taking the life of the murderer. This was earliest man’s
only means of preventing wholesale murder. H e who took
from his victim God’s greatest gift and man’s greatest
possession, life itself, must needs forfeit his own life as
the only penalty sufficient to restore the balance of
justice.) (JB, 2yn.) : “The blood of every creature be-
longs to God, cf. Lev. l : j f . , but man’s in particular be-
cause inan was made to God’s likeness. God will avenge
human blood, cf. 4:10, and delegates this office to man
himself t o be exercised through the state, or, Num. 3 5 :19f.,
through the individual ‘avenger of blood.’ ” Murder has
never been tolerated by any ethnic group because tlie
right to life is man’s fundainental right, and it is so be-
cause he was made in the image of God (v. 6 ) . Whitelaw
(PCG, 141) : “Shall. Not merely a permissive legalising,
but an imperative command enjoining, capital punishment,
575
 GENESIS
the reason for which follows: ~ O Yin t h e image of G o d
m,ade he mai~.” Some expositors have found nothing in this
law but an ordinary prophecy that the shedding of blood
would always bring reprisal in civil law (in the form of
capital punishment). It is plain, however, that the law
against murder was a positive Divine enactment, and not
a prophecy in any sense, as well as the penalty for its
violation. Whether Christ, in any of his teaching, has
given us the right to believe that the penalty has been
removed, is yet an open question. “Given t o Noah, this
statute, however, was designed for the universal family of
man, until repealed by the Authority who ordained it.
N o t having been exclusively a Jewish statute, the abroga-
tion of the Mosaic economy does not affect its stability.
Christ, not having come to destroy the fundamental laws
of Heaven, may fairly be presumed t o have left this stand-
ing. Inferences from the spirit of Christianity have no
validity against an express Divine commandment.” The
principle of Atonement, operating bqtween Heaven and
earth, seems always to have been life f o r life. (It should
be noted ‘too that a beast which might kill a human being
was to forfeit its life, just as any human murderer must
do: cf. v. 7, Exo. 21:28-29). To summarize the precepts
given here: animals could be killed for food, but the blood
must not be eaten; though the life of animals might be
taken, human life was to be held sacred. Some would
hold that we have in addition t o the law of abstinence
from blood, and the law prohibiting murder, the recogni-
tion of civil authority (cf. Rom. 1 3 :4).
6. T h e Raimbow Covenant (9:8-17).
“8 And God spake uizto Noah, and to his sow with
him, saying, 9 Aid I , behold, I establish m y covenafit
with you, aiai with your seed after y o u ; 1 0 and with every
liviizg creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and
every beast of the earth with y o u ; of alE that go out of
576
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
the ark, eveiz. every beast of the earth, I 1 An.d 1 will
establish vzy coveiaant with y o i ~ ;aeither shall all flesh be
curt off aiay inore by the waters of the flood; wither shall
there amy naoYe be a flood to destroy the e a r t h 12 Aiad
God said, this i s the toften of the coueizanf which I mahe
between i i z e a i d you a i d every livhg creature that is
with you, for perpetual geizerations; 13 I do set m y bow
iia the cloud, aiad it shall be f o r a tolteii. of a coveiaaizt
between iiqx and the earth, 14 Aid i t shall cowe to pass,
whew I briiag a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall
be seen in the cloud, 17 aizd I will reiiaeiii,ber n5y couenawt
which i s between itze and you amd every living creature
of all flesh; aii,d the waters shall mo inore becoine a flood
to destroy all flesh, 16 And tbe bow shall be in the
cloztd; aizd I will look zbpon it, that I m a y reiizember the
everlasting coveiq,aiat between God and every living creature
of all flesh that is upoiz the earth. 17 And God said unto
Noah, This is the tokeii. of the covenaii.t which I have
established between iize a i d all flesh that i s upon the earth.”
( 1 ) Note the wovd “covei~aizt.~’It designates, not a
compact, not a contract, not even an agreement, but. a
dispensation of Divine grace to be appropriated by human
faith. The God of the Bible is a covenant God. God
overtures and states the conditions: man accepts the co,ndi-
tions and thus enters into covenant relationship with God.
( 2 ) The Pre-Diluviaiz Covenaizt (Gen. 6 :18-22). In
v. 18 here we have the first occurreiice of the word .berith,
translated “covenant,” in the Scriptures, God informs
Noah t h a t He will establish His covenant with him. “It
is a sovereign dispensing of grace on God’s part, and the
security arises from the action of God. It is God’s cove-
nant, and He establishes it. Flowing from this dispensa-
tion to Noah there are corresponding obligations. Noah
and his family were to come into the ark and he was to
bring with him the specified number of animals and birds
5 77
 GENESIS
and creeping things. Thus there is no conflict between
sovereign administration of grace and ensuing obligations”
(NBD, 2 6 4 ) .
( 3 ) The Post-Dilzwian Covenant (Gen. 9:8-17). (a)
This covenant is unconditional, that is, unilateral: no
conditions are specified as terms on which the Divine grace
bestowed is made contingent. (b) It is conceived and
established by God Himself. “There is no human con-
tribution to the agency by which the promises are fulfilled.
The sign does not even take the form of an ordinance to
be performed by man a t the divine behest. The bow in
the cloud is for the purpose of attesting the faithfulness
of God and, i n anthropomorphic terms, is to bring to God’s
remembrance His covenant promise. It is not a sign over
which men exercise any control.” (c) It is universal in
its scope. It embraces not only Noah but also his seed
after him and every living creature. I t is a covena,nt
between God and all flesh. (d) It is everlasting. “No
uncertainty or mutability can belong to God’s uncondi-
tional promise.” (e) The bow in the cloud is the sign of
the covenant. ( f ) The essence od the covenant is that
the earth shall never again be devastated by a Flood (cf.
8:21-22).
( 4 ) The Bow in the ClozLd: the token or sign of the
covenant, that is to say, of the Divine promise. (a) Was
this the first appearance of the rainbow? We think not.
Experience informs us that a rainbow has always been
formed when sunshine and rainfall occur in the relation-
ship determined by the Lawgiver of the physical (astro-
nomical) world. But, some will say, there was no rain-
fall before the Flood: they base their view on the words
of Gen. 2:5-6. However, in these two verses we have (as
explained in m y Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 426-427) an account
of the conditions that prevailed on the third “day” of the
Creation, following the creation of energy-matter and
578
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
light (on Day l ) , and the atmosphere (on Day 2 ) , and
the lands and seas (on Day 3 ) , prior to t h e first appear-
ance of plant life (on the same D a y ) , All these physical
yhenomena-light, atmospliere, lands, seas-necessarily pre-
ceded the return o f the vaporous substances ( ccmistsyy)to
the earth in the form of rainfall, There is no reason for
assuming that rainfall did not continue to occur from
t h a t point on, even to t h e age of the Flood when “the
windows of heaven” were thrown wide open to let tor-
rentkl rains tlirough upon the wicked antediluvian peoples.
(b) Note 9 : 13--“I do set my bow in tlie cloud,” White-
law (PCG, 143) : “Literally, I have given, or placed.”
Rotherbam (EB, 40) : “My bow have I set in the cloud.”
By way of comparison, when Jesus established the Corn-
mullion service, He did not then make the bread or the
fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29, I Cor. 11:23-26) : He
merely selected these two substances which had existed
from time immemorial and appoivted them to be the
emblems of His crucified sinless body and his shed blood as
long as the Church should exist on this earth, t h a t is, t o
the time of His Second Coming. So it was with the rain-
bow in Noah’s time: as if God said t o the patriarch, “I
have placed my bow in the cloud, I now appoint it to
be a sign of the my covenant promise t h a t I will never
again bring a flood upon the earth to destroy mankind.
Every time you and your posterity see this rainbow in the
heavens you will remember my promise, and I will re-
member this, my everlasting covenant, which is between
me and you and all living creatures.” Thus we rightly
designate the Rainbow Covenant the Covenant of Hope.
(JB, 25 n.) : “The covenant with Noah, the rainbow its
emblem, involves the whole creation: Abraham’s covenant,
whose sign is to be circumcision, embraces his descendants
only, Gn. 17; under Moses the Covenant is confined to
Israel, and brings with it an obligation: fidelity to the
Law, Ex. 19:5, 24:7-8, and to t h e sabbath observance in
5 79
 GENESIS
particular, Ex. 31:16-17.” The seal of the New (spiritual)
Covenant is the Holy Spirit ( 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Eph. l : l O ,
4:30).
7. Noah’s Last Days (9:18-28.)
“ I 8 A n d t h e sons of Noah, t h a t w e n t forth from t h e
ark, were Shem, and H a m , and Japheth: and H u m is t h e
father of C m a a n . 19 These three were the sons of Noah:
and of these was the whole earth overspread. 20 And
N o a h began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard;
and b e drank of the wine, and was drunken; find h e wm
m c o v e r e d wibhin his tent. 22 A n d H a m , the father of
Canaan, saw t h e nakedness of his father, and told his two
brethren without. 23 A n d S h e m and Japheth took a
garmetqt, and laid it u p o n both their shodders, and went
backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and
their faces were backward, and t h e y s w not their father’s
nakedness. 24 A n d N o a h awoke f r o m his wine, and k n e w
w h a t his youngest son had done zcnto him. 2 f A n d he
said, Cursed b e Canaan; a s e r v m t of servants shall he be
unto his brethren. 26 A n d h e s d , Blessed be Jehovah,
t h e G o d of Sbem; and let Canaan be his servant. 27 G o d
enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in t h e tents of Shem;
aiqd let Canaan be his servant. 28 A n d Noah lived after
t h e flood three hundred and f i f t y years. 29 A n d d l t h e
days of N o a h were nine hundred and f i f t y years; and
he died.”
( 1 ) Noah’s Progeny (9:18-19).
( a ) Cornfeld (AtD, 36) : “Genesis does not tell us
where Noah and his family lived after the Flood, but only
that the earth was repopulated by Noah’s three sons,
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The chronicler regards Noah
as the main link in the generations reaching to Abraham,
and carefully notes that Ham, father of Canaan, is not
of the same stock as Shem, the father of the Hebrews.”
It should be noted, however, that the emphasis continues
to be on the Messianic Line, beginning with Shem and
5 80
I THE VORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
continuing through Noah to Abraham, Cornfeld again
(AtD, 36) : “As we continue to read the genealogies, we
note that tlie focus grows more and more narrow. The
emphasis at the conclusion is on Shem, t h e ancestor of
the Semites (see Gen, 1 0 :2 1-3 0 ) , which include “all the
sons of Eber” who embraced the Hebrews, The final
narrowing of the generations of Eber would come in the
.”
next chapter: read 1 ~ 6 - 2 6 ) (b) 0.I Shem, Ham, and
Japlieth it is said: “of these was t h e whole earth over-
spread,” This stateinelit leaves LIS little‘room for doubt
t h a t Noah sired no other children than t h e three sons
mentioned. (Of course again we have to consider the
fact t h a t in this text erets could be just as correctly trans-
lated “land’) as “earth.)’),
( 2 ) Nouh’s Siii ( 9 : 2 0 - 2 3 ) . “Noah began to be a hus-
bandman, and planted a vineyard.” A “husbandman” is
a farmer, a tiller of the ground. Hence JB renders this
line, “Noah, a tiller of the soil, was the first to plant
the vine.’’ This could mean, without any rending of the
text and context, that he was the first to plant a vineyard
aftel. the Flood. Two views of this incident have been
rather common among Bible students: one is t h a t the
patriarch, having been tlie first to cultivate a vineyard
was not aware of the intoxicating qualities of its fruit,
and that his intoxication was t h e consequence of this
ignorance. Thus Skinner (ICCG, 18 1) : “Noah is here
introduced in an entirely different character, as the dis-
coverer of the culture of t h e vine, and t h e first victim
to immoderate indulgence in its fruit.)’ The other view
is simply t h a t Noah, probably in an exuberaiice of joy
over his deliverance and newly found freedom, imbibed a
little too freely of the fermented juice of the grape, even
to the point of intoxication and some of the shameful
indecencies which not infrequently attend such over-
indulgence. The present writer can hardly convince him-
Y81
 GENESIS
self that Noah was the first to plant a vineyard and hence
was unaware of the intoxicating character of wine‘: It is
inconceivable that husbandry and vine cultivation were
unknown throughout all those centuries before the Flood.
Whitelaw (PCG, 148): “That Armenia is a vine-growing
country is testified by Xenophon (Anab. iv, 4, 9 ) . That
the vine was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident
from representations on the monuments, as well as from
Scriptural allusions. The Egyptians said that Osiris, the
Greeks that Dioriysos, the Romans that Saturn, first taught
men the cultivation of the tree and the use of its fruits.
, . . Though this is the first mention of wine in Scrip-
ture, it is scarcely possible that the natural process of
fermentation for so many centuries escaped the notice of
the enterprising Cainites, or even of the Sethites. ...
Since the sin of Noah cannot be ascribed to ignorance, it
is perhaps right, as well as charitable, to attribute it to
.
age and inadvertence. . . But from whatever cause in-
duced, the drunkenness of Noah was not entirely guilt-
less; it was sinful in itself, and led to futher shame.’’ The
simple fact is that Noah ccslipped,yy lapsed, this one time
only, we hope, from the path of virtue. He planted a
vineyard and, doubtless through knowledge acquired in
antediluvian experience, he made wine from the grapes
whlch his vineyard produced. In spite of his lifelong
piety, and his experience with the debauchery and vicious-
ness of his former neighbors, recollections of which should
have prompted him to restrain himself, he drank so much
of the wine that he became intoxicated. Intoxication
naturally leads to sensuality, carelessness, immodesty, and
the like, and the old patriarch lay “uncovered” in his tent,
that is, he shamefully exposed himself in some way in the
presence of his sons. Ham, it seems, was the first to find
him in this condition, and instead of being filled with
pity on seeing his father in late age in such a maudlin
582
 THE WORLD AFTER TIlE FLOOD
I
state, laughted about it as if the whole thing were a lark,
and rushed to tell his brothers, Shem and Japheth im-
mediately came to the tent, took a garment, and laid it
on both their shoulders, and walking backward placed it
over their father without even looking on his nakedness.
Thus did t h e other two brothers act with becoming
modesty while at the same time protecting their father’s
honor, whereas Ham had been guilty of a profane breach
of filial piety and disregard for elders in general, which
was an offense of the first magnitude among primitive
and early historic peoples (cf. Exo. 20: 12) . (Noah’s lapse
in his old age is evidence that humankind was still a
ccfallen’’race).
The fact should be re-emphasized here that the Bible
pictures life j74st as it is. It is the only book in the world
which protrays human character realistically. N o t for one
moment does it turn aside from the faithful record to
conceal the weaknesses and derelictions of its great men:
it pictures their lives just as they lived them. Biographers
of men usually dwell glowingly on the virtues of those
about whom they are writing, to the neglect of recording
their faults. Not so with the Bible. N o matter that Noah
was “perfect” in his generations; no matter that he walked
by faith; no matter that he was God’s chosen representa-
tive in the Messianic Line; he finally sinned, and that in
his declining years. And t h e Bible does not attempt to
conceal his fault. There is no false modesty in the Book
of Books. It uses old-fashioned words to designate old-
fashioned things. It is primarily the Book of Life.
( 3 ) Noah’s Prophecy (9:24-27). We read that Noah
“awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son
had done unto him.’’ Evidently he knew this by inspira-
tion (or intuition?), and immediately uttered a series of
terse prophetic statements which undoubtedly were in-
spired. We can hardly question this fact, because human
j83
 GENESIS
history surely records, in broad outlines a t least, the ful-
fillment of these pronouncements. (A word of caution
here: I must be understood that the destinies of the peoples
who sprang from the loins of Shem and Ham and Japheth
were not foreordained to be what they were. Rather,
these destinies were determined by the respective progenies
themselves; however, they were foreknown to God and
so could be communicated to Noah by Divine inspiration
and thus disclosed to mankind long before they actually
occurred. We must remember that foreknowledge does
not necessarily imply foreordination, except with reference,
of course, to the details of the Plan of Redemption.
Obviously, in uttering these predictions Noah was ncrt
moved by personal resentment, but was acting simply as
God’s mouthpiece. Prophecy has always been used by
the Spirit to attest the truth of revelation.)
( a ) “Cursed be Canaan, A servant of servants shall he
be unto his brethren.” Note that the dominant feature
of this entire prophecy is the curse on Canaan, which not
only stands first, but is repeated in the blessing on the
two brothers. It seems evident that prophetic insight
testified that Canaan would inherit the profane disposi-
tion of his father, Ham, and that the Canaanites would
abundantly deserve the destiny foretold of them; also that
the curse was general in its nature and hence included the
entire posterity of Ham and Canaan (for which see 10:6-
2 0 ) . Note the phrase, “a servant of servants,” etc. This
is the superlative degree, literally, “the meanest slave.”
The curse simply means that the descendants of Canaan
were doomed to enslavement to the other two branches
of the family. This destiny seemingly was reversed when
Nimrod and Mizraim founded Babylonia and Egypt re-
spectively. But it was abundantly fulfilled in early an-
tiquity when the Canaanites in Joshua’s time were partly
exterminated and partly reduced to abject slavery by the
Israelites who belonged to the family of Shem, and those
5 84
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
that remained were further reduced by Solomon (Josh.
9:23, 1 Ki, 9:ZO-21). It was fulfilled later when the
Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Egyptians, all of whom
belonged to the Line of Canaan, were reduced to subjec-
tion by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans,
These peoples, the Canaanites included, all were obsessed
with the gross sexual indulgeiices characteristic of the
ancient Cult of Fertility, as described by the Apostle Paul
in Romans 1:18-32. It may be fulfilled too in the long-
standing moral and spiritual (and cultural) backwardness
of the South African peoples who perhaps more than any
other have been forcibly reduced to abject slavery by
Semitic, and more particularly Japhetic, nations. As a
matter of fact, “African slavery” is one of the darkest
blots on the whole history of mankind. The fact is that
there is no moral ground on which any man can obtain
a legitimate title to another man’s person: this is true for
the simple reason that one soul is worth as much as an-
other in the sight of God and hence that Christ died for
all men alike.
(b) “Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, And let
Canaan be his servant,” To “blessy’ Yahweh is simply to
praise Him. The blessing here must be indirectly a bless-
ing on the Line of Shem, that is, in assuming the spiritual
primacy of the Semites by virtue of their having Yahweh
for their God. The second part of the prophecy was ful-
filled in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, Saul, David
and Solomon. By the time the Israelites were ready to
enter Canaan under Joshua, the Canaanites by their grossly
idolatrous and licentious “religious” practices had proved
themselves vessels l i t only for destruction (Judg. 1:28, 3 1 ,
3 3 ; Gen, 1 5 : 1 3 - 1 6 ; Acts 7 : 6 ) .
(c) “God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the
tents of Shern; And let Canaan be his servant.” That is,
“make room for the one who spreads abroad.” This part
58Y
 GENESIS
of the prophecy was simply a foretelling of the wide-
spread diffusion and remarkable prosperity of the Japhetic
(Aryan) peoples; as a matter of fact, the history of the
human family is largely the record of this “enlargement,”
geographically, politically, economically, and socially. In-
deed the phenomenon is evident also in the extension of
Biblical religion into all parts of the world. The descen-
dants of Japheth pushed across Asia Minor into Europe,
and moving thence both to the North and to the West they
populated the European continent, ultimately finding their
way to the shores of the Americas. Nordic, Alpine and
Mediterranean peoples are all of the Line of Japheth.
“And let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” The fulfill-
ment of this passage is obvious: certainly it occurred in
the reception of the Gentiles into the duties, privileges,
and rewards of Biblical religion, especially in the admission
of the Gentiles into the Body of Christ (cf. Acts 10:44-48,
11:15-18; Eph. 2 : l l - 1 8 ; 1 Cor. 12:12-13). Smith and
Fields (OTH, 443) : “Japheth has come to dwell in the
tents of Shem as a result of the Semitic Jews’ rejection of
their Messiah, Jesus. When this occurred the Japhetic Gen-
tiles were given the gospel of God and entered into the
spiritual relationship with God that the Jews (except for
a believing remnant) forfeited: Rorn. 11 : 11, 20-24.” The
last part of this Noahic prophecy, “Let Canaan be his
servant,” was used for many years as a Divine warrant
for the institution of African slavery. There is a great
difference, however, between a positive command such as
in Gen. 9 : 5 - 6 , and an inspired prophecy. Even though
Noah, looking into the future, may have foreseen the
spiritual and cultural backwardness of many Hamitic
peoples, still and all these words do not constitute a divine
authorization o f slavery. They should be looked upon as
only a prophetic statement of what history shows to have
been a fact.
586
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
( 4 ) Noah’s Death ( 9 : 2 8 - 2 9 ) ,
Noah, we are told here, lived after the Flood three
hundred and fifty years, Ilis life terminated, when h e
was nine hundred and fifty years old, on the same tragic
note t h a t characterizes the family of man: “an he died”
(Heb. 9 : 2 7 ) , It is interesting to note, in this connection,
by way of comparison, t h a t Abraham lived to be only one
hundred and seventy-five years old (Gen. 25:7), and
Moses oiily one hundred and twenty years old (Deut.
34:7). How shall we account for this constantly de-
creasing longevity?
:t. rt. .“r :I. :).

FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING

The Bow in the Cloud
1. Tbe 1paiiibow in the cloud was a most iizeaiziizgful
emblem. It had the prime characteristic of uwiversality.
It is a phenomenon which occurs in all parts of the earth
where there is the proper relation between sunshine and
shower, The Rainbow Covenant was not for just one
people, one nation, one race. Unlike the covenant of
circumcision which was for the fleshly seed of Abraham
only, the Rainbow Covenant was God’s promise to the
entire family of man, in fact, to “every living creature
of all flesh” ( 9 :1 5 ) . Hence the sign of this covenant
has to be one which is universal in scope, one t h a t might
be seen in every land, I t was an attitactive sign. Nothing
is more beautiful, more attractive to the human eye, than
the rainbow in the cloud. I t stirs the finest of our emo-
tions and the most fruitful of our ineditations. In its
selection, then, we detect another evidence of Divine
grace. But, above all, it was a hopeful sign. It expresses
the optimism of the entire book of Genesis. The darker
the cloud, the more impressive is t h e bow in t h e cloud!
And how forcefully this bow in the cloud reminds us of
Calvary! There a cloud so dark descended upon the earth
Y 87
 GENESIS
that even a t midday there was intense darkness over the
land (Matt. 27:45, Mark 1 5 : 3 3 , Luke 23:44). But the
eye of faith discerns in that, the heaviest cloud that ever
gathered, the bright rainbow of eternal love suffering for
a lost world! There is an aura of hope connected with
the rainbow, even in Noah‘s experience, suggestive of the
new world, the cleansed world, into which he had entered
on withdrawing from the Ark, and of the Divine grace
which had been extended to him all along the way. The
Rainbow Covenant is rightly called the Covenant of Hope.
2. T h e Rainbow Covenant teaches us t h t the blessings
of mature are no lortger comditiowed 0% man’s moral con-
duct. All the blessings and benefits of what we call “the
regular course of nature” are covenant blessings, flowing
out of God’s post-diluvian covenant with Noah. This
covenant was to the effect that “while the earth remaineth,
seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and
winter, and day and night shall nost cease’’ ( 8 : 2 2 ) . Isaac
Errett (EB, 8 0 ) : “Even though the imaginations of men’s
hearts should be evil from their youth, the sun will rise,
the moon will wax and wane, the rains will descend, and
the seedtime and harvest will come in their appointed
seasons, Men in their wickedness may deprive themselves
of the blessings God thus designs to bestow, but His
promise is none the less fulfilled. He makes the sun t o
rise on the evil and the good, and sends His rain on the
just and the unjust; for this is His promise (Matt. 5:45).
Thus, as Paul writes, God ‘left not himself without witness
in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and
fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and glad-
ness’ (Acts 14:17). When we pause to reflect on what
science unfolds to us of the ceaseless motions of imnumer-
able worlds, and learn how ehe slightest variation from the
established order might plunge system after system into
confusion and disaster, we cannot but adore that ever-
lasting truthfulness and unfailing goodness which hold all
j88
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
t h e mighty words and systems in harmony, and enable
the astronomer to foretell for ages the sun’s rising and
setting, the transits of the planets, the eclipses of the sun
and moon, and even the motions of comets, God’s cove-
nant of the day and night secures all this. God is forever
true,” God is absolute TiwtJ~,absolute Beauty, aiid absolwte
Goodness,
3 , However, the Raiiibow Covevant is euidelzce that the
preseiit wodd-ordey i~ u o t t o lasf foreveT. The promise itself
contains an intimation to the contrary: note well the
words, “while the earth remaineth,” Is not this an inti-
mation t h a t our earth will not always remain, or at least
i i o t always wizain what i f is now? But the earth will
never again be devastated by water: this was t h e Divine
assurance. Cf. 2 Pet. 3:5-7:the earth was once purged
with water; it will in the next instance be swept clean
by fire, in the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly
men, Nevertheless, God’s saints look for “new heavens
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” ( 2 Pet.
3:13; cf. Isa. 65:17, 66:22; Psa. 102:25-27; Heb. 1:lO-12,
12:26; Rev. 2 l : l - 4 ) .
The Design of Positive Institufioiis
A moral law commands a thing to be done because it
is right, but a positive law makes a thing right because
God commands it, In popular parlance God’s positive
enactments are commonly designated “ordinances.” All
such positive institutions, although always embodying the
moral quality of obedience, are primarily for the purpose
of proving (testing?) the faith of the worshiper.
The fact t h a t Noah, on entering the new and cleansed
world, worshiped God instead of paying homage to (“bless-
ing,” burning incense to, pouring holy water on) the Ark,
has a lesson of tremendous significance for all ages, In
this act the very heart of the design of positive institutions
revealed in Scripture is exemplified. The three following
5 89
 GENESIS
propositions will amplify this statement and serve to set
forth the truly Divine purpose in all such institutions.
1. Superstitioiz makes everything of positive ordinance.
Had Noah been a superstitious man he would have wor-
shiped the Ark because it was the visible instrument of
his deliverance. Man’s corrupt nature makes it difficult
for him to look beyond the visible and temporal to the
invisible and eternal ( 2 Cor. 4:18), These facts account
for the mass of ritual which has grown up under the aegis
of the older denominations of Christendom: men have
gotten so thoroughly imbued with traditions and super-
stitions, many of them borrowed from pagan sources, that
they are willing to bow before lifeless images, put cruci-
fixes on their walls, sprinkle holy water, wear sacred relics
as amulets, etc. Their cathedrals reek with the light of
candles and the odor of incense as all ancient pagan temples
did. In all such cases the Christian faith itself becomes
an empty shell, just sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.
There are those in New Testament churches who worship
baptism instead of the Christ who commanded it. No one
can literally believe in baptism; rather, one believes in
Christ who has ordained that believers should witness by
this act of faith, to the facts of the Gospel-the death and
burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. l J : l - 4 , Rom.
6: 1 7 ) . There is no efficacy in the water QS such, that is,
there is no magic involved in the institution; the efficacy
is in the faith that is exemplified in this pmitive act of
the obedience of love for the redeeming Savior. If there
is any efficacy in water, it might be right to practice
infant sprinkling (infant baptism is infant immersion) ;
if there be such a thing as “water regeneration,” it certainly
would be implicit in the act of sprinkling or pouring
water on a baby (the act which is generally and erron-
eously called “infant baptism”). The unknowing babe
has no understanding of what is going on; it has no
590
 THE WORLD AFTER TIlE FLOOD
coilscience elitering into the transaction (cf. 1 Pet, 3 :21) ;
hence the efficacy in such an act, if any, must lie in the
water and in t h e water alone. But who believes such a
thing? Is it not sheer magic, sheer superstition? Most
certainly the Bible does not teach “water regeneration,”
nor does it authorize the patting of a few drops of water
on a baby’s head and calling t h a t a “baptism.” Baptism
is for the penitent believer: it is the expression to t h e
world of his faith in Christ and of his love for Christ;
it is his testimonial to the facts of t h e death, burial and
resurrection of Christ. The moinent the sinner begins to
worship t h e ordinance instead of the Christ who ordained
it, his faith-if it can be called that-has degenerated into
mere superstition. Take an example from the Old Testa-
ment: As long as the Children of Israel looked on the
brazen serpent in the wilderness, and looked through it to
the God who ordained it and its specific purpose, and then
took God a t His Word by doing what He commanded
them to do, they were healed ( N u m . 21 :9, John 3 :14) .
However, there came a time when they drifted into the
worship of the thiiig itself instead of worshiping the God
who, in His benevolence, had ordained it for their good;
it was then that Hezekiah the king ordered the brazen
serpent broken into pieces, calling it ccNehushtan,y’that
.
is, “a piece of brass” ( 2 Ki. 18 :4)
2. Mysticism, infidelity, aiid PYofaii,ity make n0thin.g
of a positive institutioiz. The mystic prates about “the
mere word,” as if it were something to be trifled with
He forgets that this is the Word which created and which
sustains our universe in all its aspects and processes (Psa.
33:6-9, 148:l-6; John 1:l-3; Heb. 1:l-4; Col. 1:13-17;
Rom. 10:4-17). The mystic depends on feeling as his
spiritual barometer, talks a great deal about “heartfelt
religion,” “spiritual experiences,” about “being in tune
with the Infinite,” etc., but, insofar as his actions are the
norm, seems to care very little about the Bible. (Such
591
 GENESIS
groups as the Quakers, the Christian Scientists, the Unity
cults, etc., “spiritualize” both baptism and the Lord’s
Supper out of concrete existence altogether.) The un-
believer scoffs a t Divine institutions, and dubs them “super-
stitions,” “hangover of folklore,” etc. The profane per-
son, while halfheartedly recognizing a positive ordinance
as having something of divinity, still manifests no respect
for it or for the God who ordained it. To all these classes
we might issue the warning expressed in the old axiom,
“He who despises an ordinance of God, despises the God
of the ordinance,” and in the blunt words of the prophet
Samuel to King Saul, “Behold, to obey is better than
sacrifice, and to hearken than the f a t of rams” (I Sam.
15:22).
3. Faith regards and m e s a positive institution as a Di-
uiiw appoiiqtnzeizt, as God intended it to be used. Noah
made use of the Ark as he was supposed to do, according
to God’s leading, in obedience to God’s Word. Biblical
positive ordinances are solemn trysts, Divine appointments,
wherein Divine grace and human faith “meet together.”
Christian baptism, for example, is the appointed institu-
tion wherein God meets the penitent believer to bestow
on him remission of sins and the indwelling Holy Spirit
(Acts 2:38; Rom. 5:J; 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:19-20; Gal.
3 : 2 ) . The Lord’s Supper is the appointed memorial in-
stitution wherein our Elder Brother meets, from Lord’s
Day to Lord’s Day, with all whom He has bought with
His own precious blood and incorporated into His Body,
the Church (Matt. 26:26-29; 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 11:23-30;
Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18-20; Rev. 5:9). In like
manner, the Ark was the Divinely appointed meeting-
place wherein Noah met God and received deliverance
from the Divine judgment which fell upon the ungodly
antediluvian world. Noah was a man of faith, and faith
takes God a t His Word (Heb. 11:7, Rom. 10:17). Faith,
which is the substance of things hoped for and a convic-
592
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
tion with respect to things not seen (Heb, 11:1), appro-
priates the Divine positive ordinances as solemn appoint-
ments as God intends them to be used,
Noah God’s Ma?? for ma Emergeiacy
God always has His mail for an emergency, and Noah
certainly was no exception to the rule. Let us note the
successive phases of Noah’s life.
1, Noah i i z rrtbeworld of the umgodly.” Contemplation
of faithful Noah living in the midst of a perverse genera-
tion, warning them of judgment “not seen as yet,” plead-
ing with the people to repent and reform their lives, should
remind the Christian of his constant duty in spite of every
obstacle and discouragement; that he should go his way
testifying of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment to
come, regardless of the sneers of the worldly wise, the
tauntings of the vicious, and the opposition of the hypo-
critical purveyors of false, assumed piety. A true Chris-
tian cannot expect to pitch his tabernacle on the mountain
top, as Peter wanted to do on the Mount of Transfigura-
tion( Matt. 17:4) ; his work lies down in the valley where
there is poverty, passion, toil, sorrow, pride, incestuousness,
sin of every kind.
“I said, ‘Let me walk in the fields,’
God said, ‘No, walls. in the town.’
I said, ‘There are no flowers there,’
He said, ‘No flowers, but a crown.’
I said, ‘But the sky is black,
And there is smoke and bustle and din’;
He wept as He brought me back again,
And said, ‘There is more-there is sin.”’
2. Noah Passing through the Flood. His deliverance
through the raging waters of the Deluge is a striking figure
of Christian baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Water is the
symbol of cleansing: hence in all ages God has maintained
His water-line between the saved and the lost, between
593
 GENESIS
His people and the people of the world (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2;
Exo. 29:4, 40:12; Lev. 8:6, 16:4, 2 4 with 1 Pet. 2 : 9 ;
Rev. 1:6; Matt. 3:5-7, 28:19, etc.). As the water sep-
arated those of faith, in the days of Noah, from the world
of the ungodly, so in our Dispensation the same line of
demarcation is fixed between the church and the unsaved
world. The water which rolled over the eight persons
in the Ark sanctified them, set them apart for Divine de-
liverance. As they passed from the wicked antediluvian
world, “through the water,” into a new world where all
was cleansed by this Divine judgment, so the penitent be-
liever leaves the bondage of sin, comes to the water, passes
through it, and arises to walk in newness of life (John
3:5, Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6 : l - 1 1 ) . As Noah and his family
were completely buried from view so that they could
neither see nor be seen by those about them, so the penitent
believer must be buried in the water, completely hidden
from view, before he can claim to be baptized Scripturally
‘
(Col. 2:12, Matt. 3:16, Acts 8:36-39). Baptism is a pro-
found spiritual heart act of the obedience of love (John
14: 1 5 , Rom. 6 ~ 7 ) .
3 . Noah in the Ark presents a different picture from
the Noah in the ungodly world. In the antediluvian
society there was no rest for his troubled soul, no peace
of body or mind or spirit, but in the Ark was profound
seclusion. No matter if the elements were raging without,
he and his family must have felt, in the ark, that security
and peace which obedient faith alone can give. In this
respect the Ark becomes a figure of Christ. All of God’s
“waves and billows” (Psa. 42:7, Jonah 2 : 3 ) rolled over
the innocent Jesus when He hung on the Cross (Matt.
2 7 : 4 6 ) , and, as a blessed consequence of His vicarious
Sacrifice, none of these must pass over the saints, all of
whom He has purchased with His own precious blood.
At Calvary we see once again “the fountains of the great
deep broken u p and the windows of heaven opened.” At
5 94
I
THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
Calvary we see “deep calling unto deep a t the noise of thy
waterfalls” (Psa, 42:7) Jesus bore the burden of human-
e

ity’s sin in His own body and paid humanity’s debt (John
1:29, 1 Pet, 2 : 2 1 - 2 $ ) . “He put himself under the weight
of His people’s liabilities and discharged them fully. The
acceptance of this truth, through unqualified belief in
Him, gives to the soul that peace ‘which passeth all under-
standing.’ Christ is our Ark of safety; in Him only can
we find that blessed security which only redeeming love
can bestow.” (Phil. 4 : 7 ) .
4. Noah cowing out of the Ark aiZd takhg his place
in the cleansed new world must have experienced mingled
feelings of awe, gratitude, and sadness: awe, because of
the strange and mighty works of God, gratitude for the
deliverance of himself and his family, and sadizess a t the
thought of his friends and neighbors having all perished
in the Flood. Throughout all his experience, he had placed
himself unreservedly in the hands of Jehovah and been
guided by Him. The same God who said a t first, “Make
thee an ark of gopher wood,” and later, “Come, thou and
all thy house, into the ark,” now “remembered” Noah and
all that were with him in the ark, and “made a wind to
pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; the fountains
also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped,
and the rain from heaven was restrained.” The rays of
the sun now poured down on a planet that had been bap-
tized with a baptism of judgment. Judgment is one of
God’s terrible acts: He takes no delight in it, though He is
glorified by it. The same God now said to Noah, “Go
forth from the ark.” And Noah went forth . . . and
builded an altar unto Jehovah.” All is simple faith and
obedience. Noah, in all his varied experiences, never raised
a question when God spoke! He did what God told him
to do and in the way God told him to do it. What a
different thing from the carping, caviling, evasive thing
that men have today which they call “faith”! Faith never
Y9Y
 GENESIS
asks the why or wherefore, when God commands. (Heb.
11:7).
5 . When God closed the door of the Ark behind Noah
aud bis house, be .hit o u t the unbelieving and impenitent
world. Then the “fountains of the great deep were broken
u p and the windows of heaven were opened,” and judg-
ment was at hand. N o matter that there were “giants in
the earth” in those days, “mighty men, men of renown”;
no matter that there were walled cities, and great herds
and flocks on the outside; no matter that there were
sounds of reveling by night, and wars and rumors of war
by day-all had to be swept away! The sounds of the
harp and the lyre were stilled, the forger’s hammer lay
unused, and the people cried for the rocks and the moun-
tains, but it was too late! We may imagine that, if Noah
could have given just one invitation from the door of the
Ark, the people would have crowded in over each other’s
dead bodies! The Lord Jesus Christ opened the door of
His Church on Pentecost, through His Apostles guided
into all the truth by the Spirit, and it has never been closed
from that day to this. It still stands ajar, ready to receive
all who will enter in on the terms of the Gospel Covenant.
The time is bound to come, however, when the Lord Him-
self shall close the door of His Church, and gather her
unto Himself “as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev.
21:2, 21:9-10, 22:17), When that time comes all oppor-
tunity for repentance will have terminated. In a moment,
in the twinkling of an eye ( I Cor. 1 5 : 5 1 ) , H e will come
with His mighty angels, “in flaming fire, rendering
vengeance to them that know not God and obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” ( 2 Thess. 1:7-10).
Multitudes will cry for the rocks and the mountains to
fall upon them, but everlastingly too late. The hopeless
answer will be, “Jesus of Nazareth has passed by.” Now
is the accepted time, sinner friend: this should be the day
of your salvation.
596
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
Noah was God’s man for an emergency, God always has
His man in the time of crisis, and Noah was this man in
the early moral history of the race, Dean (OBH, 16) :
“Some names are forever associated with great epochs:
Lincoln with Emancipation, Cromwell with the Common-
wealth, Moses with the Exodus, so Noah with the Deluge.
Read Gen. 6 : 9 , 7 : l ; Ezelr. 14:14, Noah was God’s man-
a heroic figure in an apostate age. Altar after altar had
crumbled, but the fires on Noah’s altar did not go out
till quenched by the Flood, It calls for courage to stand
alone, But Noah dared t o lead where few dared to follow.
The absolute obedience and safety of Noah, the hopeless
corruption and ruin of the race-such as the impressive
lessons, For one hundred and twenty years Noah faith-
fully preached and heroically lived, Only seven converts
rewarded his labors: his wife, and his sons, Shem, Ham, and
Jehpeth, and their wives, Yet Noah was successful: he
did his duty, and he outrode the Flood.”
b: :: :6 + :I.
REVIEW QUESTIONS O N PART T W E N T Y - T W O
1, How many days of Noah’s life were spent in the
Ark?
2. List the successive phases of “the days of prevailing”
of the waters upon the earth.
3. List the successive phases of t h e days of ccassuaging.’’
4. On what basis do we conclude that a month in Noah’s
life was a period of thirty days?
5 . Would you consider it reasonable to hold that the
period of Noah’s life spent in the Ark can be harmo-
nized with the localized-Flood theory? Explain,
6. Where did t h e Ark finally come to rest?
7. Is there any definite conclusion to be drawn from the
fact t h a t the word w e t s may be translated either
“earthyyor “land’’?
597
 GENESIS
8. What are the three pivotal events in the history of
earth?
9. How answer these questions: (1) Is there enough
water on our planet to cover it entirely? ( 2 ) Whence
came the waters which produced the Deluge? ( 3 )
Where did they go when the Flood subsided?
10. What is meant by the statement that God “remem-
bered” the occupants of the Ark when the time arrived
for them to disembark?
11. What is the significance of the statement that He
“remembered” the animals that were with Noah in
the Ark?
12. Why was the raven probably sent out first?
13. What was the significance of the sending out of the
dove? H o w many times was the dove sent out?
14. What was probably the symbolism of the freshly-
plucked olive-leaf ?
1 5 . What are the characteristics of a dove? What does
the dove symbolize in the Scriptures?
16. What is the connection between this symbolism and
the manifestations which occurred after the baptism
of Jesus?
17. What probably is meant by the “covering” of the
Ark?
18. What interesting facts are revealed about the families
in the A r k ?
19. Name the sons of Noah and state what each name
means.
20. What was Noah’s first act on withdrawing from the
Ark?
21. What is the significance of the fact that Noah wor-
shiped God and not the Ark?
22. How do we know that Noah was not a superstitious
man?
23. What probably did the statement mean that Yahweh
“smelled the sweet savor” of Noah’s sacrifice?
598
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
24, What seems to have been the deeper meaning of God’s
soliloquy in 8 :2 1-22?
25, In what special way was man’s dominion over the
lower animals reaffirmed?
2 6, What was the change in the feelings of the animals
toward man after the Flood?
27, What does Noah’s altar teach us about the institution
of Sacrifice?
28. What was the Divine blessing bestowed on Noah
and his sons?
29, Is there any conclusive Scripture evidence that man
was permitted only a vegetarian diet prior to the
Flood?
30, What part of living creatures was prohibited as food
after the Flood?
3 1. What law was ordained about t h e eating of blood?
M h y this prohibition?
32. What law was ordained about murder? What is
murder?
33. What was the ordination with respect to a beast
that killed a human being?
3 4. What was the purpose of the practice of blood ven-
geance?
3 5. H o w shall we regard the law against murder in rela-
tion to capital punishment?
3 6. Were these fundamental laws universal or only Mosaic
in their scope? Explain your answer.
3 7. What is a covenant?
3 8. What was God’s pre-diluvian covenant with Noah
and his house?
39, What was the essence of His post-diluvian covenant
with Noah?
40. What Divine promise did this covenant include about
future floods?
41. Was this covenant unilateral? If so, in what sense?
42. What was the sign of this covenant?
5 99
 GENESIS
43. Does this necessarily mean that no rainbow had ap-
peared before this time? Explain.
44. Of what people was the earth “oversperad” after the
Flood?
45. What sin did Noah commit after the Flood?
46. What light does this throw on our statement that
the Bible is the Book of Life?
47. What various attitudes did Noah’s sons take with
regard t o their father’s sin?
48. What does the New Testament teach about drunk-
enness?
49. What was wrong in Ham’s attitude? What funda-
mental moral law did he break?
JO. Explain the historical fulfillment of Noah’s curse
on the Line of Ham and Canaan.
51, Explain the historical fulfillment of Noah’s blessing
on the Line of §hem.
52. Explain the historical fulfillment of the blessings pro-
nounced by Noah on the Line of Japheth.
53. How old was Noah when he died? Compart this
with Abraham’s age when he died, and with the age
of Moses when he died? How account for the de-
scending longevity?
5 4. What lessons are to be derived from the story of the
Rainbow Covenant?
5 5. What is the essential character of a Divine positive
ordinance?
5 6. How does a superstitious man treat a positive Divine
ordinance?
57. What lesson do we learn from the Old Testament
story of the Brazen Serpent about the design of
positive institutions mentioned in Scripture?
58. What attitude does the mystic take toward Divine
positive institutions?
59, How does unbelief treat such an institution?
600
 THE WORLD AFTER THE FLOOD
60. How does a profane person treat God’s positive ordi-
nances?
60. What two kinds of worship does God require of
His people? What is t h e essential character of external
worship?
61. What do we mean when we say t h a t positive ordi-
aiiaces are Divine appointments?
62. What does this teach us about the design of the
Christian ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
63. What was wrong in Peter’s attitude on the Mount
of Transfiguration?
64. Summarize the successive phases of Noah’s life,
65. What does the writer of Hebrews say about Noah’s
faith? How did Noah show his great faith?
66. Why did we say that Noah was “God’s man for an
emergency”?

60 1
 PART TWENTY-THREE:
T H E BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
(Gen. 10: 1-32)
1. The Families of Noah (10: 1).
“Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah,
namely, of Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and ulzto them were
sons born after the flood.”
It seems that Noah gave to Shem and Japheth, by
prophetic insight of course, the names that would be de-
scriptive of their respective destinies: Shem (“name,”
CC
renown,” because Yahweh would be his God in a special
sense) , Japheth “wide-spreading,” “enlargement,” with
widespread occupancy of the earth and accompanying civil
power, and by sharing ultimately. the spiritual blessings of
the Line of Shem. As for Ham, his name is usually ren-
dered “dark-colored”; however, the etymology is said to
be uncertain. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to
identify the various ethnic groups that were, or are,
associated with this progenitor and his name. Anthro-
pological classifications in our day do not recognize a
specific Hamitic Line. It is noteworthy, however, that a
surprising number of the names listed in Chapter x. have
been reliably identified, as we shall see below.
2 . The Table of Natiom
This is the name usually given to the content of this
chapter. The word “nation” is best defined as a specific
ethnic group or people. Hence, we are correct in speak-
ing of the United States as the “melting-pot of nations.”
Note well (JB, 2 5 ) : “In the form of a genealogical
tree this chapter draws up a Table of Peoples; the principle
behind the classification is not so much racial affinity as
historical and geographical relationship. The sons of
Japheth inhabit Asia Minor and the Mediterranean islands,
the sons of Ham people the lands of the south, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Arabia, to which is added Canaan in memory of
the time when she was Egypt’s satellite. In the regions
602
 3. The Trend of the Nawafive
It is evident t h a t the writer of Genesis (Moses), in
setting forth the account of man’s original temptation

-
 GENESIS
writes: “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and
to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.’’ Thus the
true Seed. Messiah, became the fulfillment of the Genesis
oracle (Gen. 3:15) and of the Abrahamic Promise (Gen.
12:3, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14; Acts 3:25; Luke 1:44; Rom.
4:13-16, 9:1-5). Thus the internal unity of the Biblical
revelation as a whole is again demonstrated beyond all
possibility of reasonable doubt.
4. Problems of the Table of Nations
This Table presents some difficulties for which no sulu-
tion has been found, up to the present time at least. Note
the following facts, in this connection: ( 1 ) The account
is that of the peopling of the earth after the Flood (10:32),
and the area in which this began to take place must have
been relatively small; therefore we must depend on subse-
quent history to trace the continued diffusion. (2) Some
of the names which might be known t o us in their native
forms may seem unfamiliar because of having been vocal-
ized incorrectly in the Hebrew tradition, by which the
purely consonantal text has been supplied with vowel
signs. Kraeling (BA, 4 7 ) : “Thus Gomer should have been
Gemer, Meshech should have been Moshech, and Togarma
should have been Tegarma according t o the evidence of
the Assyrian inscriptions.” ( 3 ) Apparently, the same, or
very similar, names occur in separate Lines of descent.
(Of course this may be accounted for on the ground that
a particular people may have occupied-by conquest or
by infiltration-an area already held by another and taken
over the established geogrupbical name of the prior ethnic
group (as, for example, the English became known as
Britons, and the Germanic peoples as Teutons, etc.). (4)
The greatest difficulty, however, is that of the intermin-
gling of individual with national (tribal) names. Smith
and Fields et a1 (ITH, 46) : “Now this is really of little
604
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
consequence, since, with a few exceptions, as that of Nim-
‘rod (Gen. 10:8-9), the purpose is clearly to exhibit the
affinities of nations, The record is etkiiograpbical rather
than genealogical, This is clear from the plural forms of
some of the names (for example, all the descendants of
Mizraiiiz), and from the ethnic form of others, as those
of the children of Cauaaii, nearly all of which are simply*
geographical, The genealogical form is preserved in the
first generation after the sons of Noah, and is then virtually
abandoned for a mere list of the nations descended from
each of these progenitors, But in the line of the patri-
archs from Shem to Abraham t h e genealogical form is
strictly preserved, since the object is to trace a personal
descent,” Here it becomes Messianically oriented.
O n the positive side of this problem, the following facts
should be kept in mind: (1) As t o the area from which
the dispersion began to take place certainly t h e highlands
of Armenia (“the mountains of Ararat”) were especially
adapted to be the center from which peoples (after Babel)
began to move in all directions. Thence diffusion con-
tinued at first by way of the great river systems-the
Tigris-Euphrates, the Nile, the Indus, the Hwang-ho and
Wei-the invention of the sail-boat having made these
the arteries of transportation. Just before the beginning
of the historic period the peoples began to move in several
directions at once: some into India, China, and across the
Bering Strait into the Americas; others toward the Medi-
terranean and into the Lower Nile; still other groups such
as t h e Megalithic traversed the Mediterranean into the
Atlantic and up t h e coast as far as the Tin Islands (Great
Britain), and as the Beaker peoples who brought bronze
into Europe made their way up t h e Danube to the Baltic
areas. That Southwest Asia was t h e cradle of the human
race seems evident from the testimony of anthropology
and early history, The unity of the race is a scientific
60 5
 GENESIS
fact; as one anthropologist, Goldenweiser, puts it (An-
thropology, 32) : “All the fundamental traits of the psychic
make-up of man anywhere are present everywhere.” Phil-
ology, the study of the origin of language, insofar as
science has been able to penetrate this mystery, corrobo-
rates this view. ( 2 ) The geographical explanations which
appear in the Table itself greatly facilitate the indentifica-
tion of the peoples who are named. ( 3 ) Through the help
afforded by classical sources and by the ancient inscriptions
which tell us so much about the world in which ancient
Israel lived, “a surprising number of the names in this
Table of Nations have been reliably identified” (Kraeling,
BA, 4 7 ) . (4) Note the following summary by Mitchell
(NBD, 867): “The names in the Table were probably
originally the names of individuals, which came to be
applied to the people descended from them, and in some
cases to the territory inhabited by these people. It is im-
portant to note that such names could have different
meanings a t different points in history, so that the mor-
phological identification of a name in Gn. x with one in
the extra-biblical sources can be completely valid only if
the two occurrences are exactly contemporary. The
changes in significance of names of this kind are due
largely to the movements of peoples, in drift, infiltration,
conquest, or migration. There are three principal charac-
teristics of a people which are sufficiently distinctive to
form some nuance of their name. These are race or physi-
cal type: language, which is one constituent of culture;
and the geographical area in which they live or the political
unit in which they are organized. Racual features cannot
change, but they can become so mixed or dominated
through intermarriage as to be indistinguishable. Lan-
guage can change completely, that of a subordinate group
being replaced by that of its rulers, in many cases perma-
nently. Geographical habitat can be completely changed
606
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
by migration, Since a t times one, and a t other times an-
other, of these characteristics is uppermost in the signifi-
cance of a name, the lists in Gn. x are unlikely to have
been drawn up on one system alone. Thus, for instance,
the descendants of Shein cannot be expected all to have
spoken one language, or t o have lived all in one area, or
even to have belonged to one racial type, since inter-
marriage may have obscured this. That this could have
talcen place may be indicated by the presence of apparently
duplicate names in more than one list, Asshur (see Assyria) ,
Sheba, Havilah, and Lud (im) under both Shem and
Ham, and probably Meshek (Mash in Shem’s list) under
Shem and Japheth. Though these may indicate names t h a t
are entirely distinct, it is possible that they represent points
where a strong people had absorbed a weaker,” Again:
“It is necessary to observe t h a t names have been adopted
from this chapter for certain specific uses in modern times.
Thus in language study the terms ‘Semitic’ and ‘Hamitic’
are applied, the former to the group of languages including
Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Arabic, etc., and the latter
to the group of which (ancient) Egyptian is the chief,
This is a usage of convenience, however, and does not mean
t h a t all the descendants of Shem spoke Semitic languages or
all those of H a m Hamitic. Thus the entry of Elam under
Shem, and Canaan under Ham, is not necessarily erroneous,
even though Elamite was non-Semitic and Canaanite was
a Semitic tongue. In short, the names in Gn. 1 0 probably
indicate now geographical, now linguistic, and now politi-
cal entities, but not consistently any one alone.” W. F.
Albright comments t h a t the Table of Nations “shows such
a remarkably ‘modern’ understanding of the linguistic
situation in the ancient world . . . that it stands absolutely
alone in ancient literature, without even a remote parallel
even among the Greeks, where we find the closest approach
to a distribution of the peoples in genealogical framework.
But among the Greeks t h e framework is mythological and
607
 GENESIS
the people are all Greeks or Aegean tribes)’ (quoted by
Cornfeld, AtD, 3 7 ) . Cornfeld adds: “This Table is not
the basis of the division of the races of mankind into the
Aryan, Semitic and dark-skinned races. It knows nothing
of the Far East and the Pacific and Atlantic races or of
dark Africa south of Egypt. But it contains data about
the geographical distribution of the ancient Near East,
from the confines of Iran and Edom down to Arabia, of
commercial and linguistic ties, and far-scattered tribes,
‘nations,’ countries and towns.”
5 . The Line of Japheth ( 1 0 : 2 - 5 ) .
2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai,
and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And
the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphatb, and Togar-
mah. 4 And the sons o f Jauan: Elishah, and Tarshisb,
Kittim, and Dodaniin. Of these were the isles of the
nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue,
af f e r their families, in their nations.”
The Line of Japheth included the northern and western
peoples: those who later spread over Europe and the
Americas. Gomer: called Gimirrai in Assyrian texts: in
Homer the Cimmerians (Odys., 11:13-19) : lived north of
the Black Sea. Ashkenaz: probably the Scythians, living
in the Black Sea region (cf. Jer. 5 1: 2 7 ) . Riphatb: un-
identified. Togarmah: Tegararna in Hittite, Tilgarimmu
in Assyrian, inscriptions: lived in what was later known
as Cappadocia (cf. Acts 2:9; 1 Pet. 1 : l ; Ezek. 27:14,
3 8 : 6 ) . Magog: name of northern nomads, living in re-
gions around the Caspian Sea (cf. Ezek. 38:2, 39:6; Rev.
2 0 : 8 ) , equated by Josephus with the Scythians. Madai:
uniformly translated Medes who lived South of the Caspian
Sea, later formed an important part of the empire of
Cyrus the Persian. lauan: Ionians: the name for the
Greeks of Asia Minor. Elishgh: the name traditionally
associated with the Greeks of Sicily and southern Italy.
Tarshish: many writers identify Tarshish with Tartessus
60 8
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
of soutberii Spain (cf, Jonah 1:3, 4:2; Isa, 2 3 :1, 6, 10; Jer,
10:9). Kiftiw: the island of Cyprus; later used to refer
to the Romans (Dan. 11 : 30) . Dodaiiiiii (or Rodaiiini,) :
probably the inhabitants of the island of Rhodes (cf. 1
Chron. 1: 7 ) , T u b a l and M e s l m b : naines occur together
in Scripture (Ezek, 27:13; 32:26; 38:2, 3 ; 3 9 : l ) ; Tabali
in Assyrian texts, in inhabited area near Cilicia. Meskech,
in Phrygia, was Assyrian M i d & , Greek Moscbi, Tiras:
probably identical with the Tyrsenoi of classical tradition
and Turusha of earlier Egyptian texts; probably also t h e
piratical sea people who invaded Egypt and Syria in t h e
thirteenth century before Christ, thought by some to have
been the Thracians. Occupied islands and coastlands of
the Aegean, aiid said to have been ancestors of t h e Etrus-
cans.
6. The Liiic of Haiii (10:6-20).
6 Aiid the sorrs of H a m : Cirsh, arid Mjzraiiii, aiid Pict,
aiid Caiiaaii. 7 Aiid the soris of Ciish: Seba, aiid Havilab,
aiid Sabtah, arid Raamah, arid Sabteca; aiid the soiis o f
Raaiiiah: Sheba, aiid Dedaii. 8 Arid Ciish begat N i m r o d :
he begaii to De a iiiighty oric iii the earth. 9 He was a
mighty hiinfer before Jehovah; wherefore it is said, L i k e
Niiiirod a mighty Ihiiter before Jehovah. 10 Aird the
begiiiiiiiig of his kiiigdoiii was Babel, aiid Erech, arid
Accad, aiid Calrich, in the larid of Shiiiar. 11 Oiit of that
larid he werit f o r t h irito Assyria, aiid budded Niiieveh, and
Rehoboth-lr, aiid Calah, 12 aiid Rese17 between Niiieveh
aiid Calah (the same is the great c i t y ) . 1 3 Aiid Mizraiiii
begat Liidiiii, mid Aiiaiiiiiii, aiid Lchabim, aiid N a p h tuhiiii,
14 aiid Pathriisim, aiid Caslirhiw (whciice weiit f o r t h the
Philistines), arid Caphtoriiii. 1 5 Aiid Caiiaaii begat Sidoti
his fimt-born, aiid Heth, 1 G arrd the Jebusite, aiid the
Aiiiorite, arid the Girgashitc, 17 aiid the Hivife, aiid the
Arltite, aiid the Siuitc, atid the A w a d i f e , arid the Zema-
rite, aiid f h e Haiiiathitr: arid afterward were the faiiiilies
of the Caiiaariite spread abroad. 1 9 A i i d the border of
609
 GENESIS
the Canaanite was from Sidon, as thozr goest toward Germ,
unto Gam; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrfih
and Admah awd eboiim, unto Lasba. 20 These are the
sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in
their lands, in their nations.”
Cush: Nubia, the region below the First Cataract of the
Nile, misnamed Ethiopia by the Greeks. Seba: distin-
guished from Sheba by spelling; early geographers mention
a city named Saba on the African coast of the Red Sea,
but the identification is uncertain. Hauilak: in central
Arabia. Cf. 10:29, under the Line of Shem. Sabtah:
definite location impossible as yet: Greek geographer Pliny
mentions Sabota, a name that corresponds to Shabwat of
the South Arabian inscriptions, on southeast coast of Arabia
or on African Coast of Red Sea. Raamah: probably in
southeastern Arabia. Two divisions of Raamah were
Sheba, the land of the Sabaeans in Yemen (cf. v. 2 8 ) ,
and Dedan, probably a people of northwestern Arabia
along the Red Sea. Nimrod, the “mighty hunter’ (see
infra).
Mizraim: Egypt, extending northeast almost to Gaza.
Ludim: in North Africa (served as bowmen in the armies
of Egypt and Tyre [Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:10, 30:5]; prob-
ably not the Ludim [Lydians] of the Line of Shem [v.
221 .) Lehabim: probably Lybians, on southern shore of
the Mediterranean, west of Egypt. Napbtubim: identifi-
cation uncertain; perhaps in the vicinity of Memphis, or
in the Egyptian Delta, people of cclowery’or northern
Egypt. Pathrzrsim: identified with Pathros (Ezek. 29: 14,
Jer. 44:15), people of Southern or Upper Egypt, from
Aswan to the head of the Delya. Caslzrhim: people from
whom the Philistines were descended (v. 1 4 ) ; probably
occupied northern coast of Africa, near Gulf of Sidra
(inlet of Tripolitanian coast). Capktorim: The people
of Crete (Amos 9 : 7 ) .
61 0
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
Put or Phut: late name for North African district lying
west and south of the Nile Delta; however, its precise
location is disputed. Some identify it with Cyreiiaica on
the North African Coast.
Cafqaan: originally used of the land of t h e Phoenicians
and Canaanites of Syria and Palestine. We have here a
list of the important Canaanite groups. Sidoi?: famous
Phoenician city on west coast of Asia Minor; mentioned in
the Amarna letters; the greatest of t h e Phoenician coastal
cities until surpassed by its ‘(daughter” Tyre. Hetb: father
of the Hittites whose political and cultural center was
Hattusas, in the bend of the Halys River, In the days
of Abraham they were settled in the Hebron area. Jebu-
sites: their stronghold was Jebus, the name which was
finally incorporated into the name Jerusalem. The city
was captured by David and made the capital of united
Israel (cf. 1 IG. 9:20). Aiizorites: occupied the hill
country on either side of the Jordan. (Cf. Exo. 33:2;
Gen. 14:7, 13; Deut. 1:44, 3:8; Num. 21:34-35). They
later settled in Mesopotamia where one of their leaders,
Hammurabi, in Babylon, became famous as an able king
and lawgiver, Girgasbites. Nothing more is known of
them as yet. Hiuit’es: mentioned in connection with Shec-
hem (Gen. 33:18, 34:2), Gibeon (Josh. 9 ) , and Mount
Hermon (Josh. 11:3), and Hamath (Judg. 3 : 5 ) . (Cf.
also 1 Ki, 9:20-22). Arkites: inhabitants of the Phoenic-
ian city of Arqa, a t the foot of t h e Lebanons. Siizites:
Assyrian records mention the people of Siamu “on the
shore of the sea” (Mediterranean) along with the cities
or Arqa and Simirra. Arvadites: people of Arvad, most
northerly of Phoenician cities, 125 miles north of Tyre.
Zeiizarit~s: location not definitely established: Amarna
letters mention city of Sumur, and mention of Simirra
occurs in Assyrian records of Tiglath-Pileser 111. Hanza-
tbites: people of Hamath, a city on the Orontes River in
Syria; a t one time it formed the northern boundary of
61 1
 GENESIS
Israel ( 2 Sam. 8:9, I Ki. 8:65, I1 Ki. 14:2J). Note that
the land of the Phoenicians and Canaanites is described
as extending from Sidon on the north to Gaza on the
south, and inward as f a r as the Dead Sea. Note also that
the people known as Hamites rose to prominence early in
history, having settled generally in northern Africa and
southwestern Asia. Israel had closer contacts with the
Hamites than with the more remote Japhetic peoples.
7. lnterlude: N i m r o d the Empire-Builder. (10:8-12)
The story of Nimrod is intriguing, to say the least. H e
is described as “a mighty one in the earth,” as “a mighty
hunter before Jehovah.” What does this mean? Lange
answers (CDHCG, 349): “By such a proverb there may
be noted a praiseworthy, Herculean pioneer of culture,
as well as a blameworthy and violent despot [in ancient
terms, tyrant], In truth, the chase of the animals was,
for Nimrod, a preparatory exercise for the subjugation of
men.” It can hardly be denied that Nimrod was an
empire-builder. H e belonged, it would seem, to what in
Greek tradition was known as the Heroic Age: that is,
he was a hero in the sense that Homer uses the word to
describe the valiant (and often licentious and bloodthirsty)
Greeks and Trojans of the lliad and Odyssey. H e im-
pressed his name on subsequent generations to such an
extent that the empire which he established was still, in
the time of Micah the prophet, “the land of Nimrod”
(Mic. J:6). It is interesting to note, too, that the cities
that are associated in Gen. 10:10-12 with Nimrod’s empire-
building have, for the most part, been clearly identified
in secular history.
Cornfeld (AtD, 3 8 ) : “According to this story, in the
beginning Nimrod’s kingdom was in Babylon, and from
there he went to Assyria. This may not be historically
true, but it accurately reflects the historic background
pertaining to the early Babylonian and Assyrian kingdoms.
The names of cities connected with him are well attested
612
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
by archaeological research, The name of Nimrod is pre-
served in t h a t of the present-day Arab village Nimrud,
where ancient Calah was excavated. The modern name
Nimrud may possibly contain an echo of that used in
antiquity for its chief protector, Ninurta, god of war and
the chase. The biblical name Nimrod, according to E. A.
Speiser, does not echo a god but the reign of the vigorous
Tutukli-Ninurta I ( 1243- 1207) who built Calah, Assyria’s
second capital, and conquered Babylon. The description
of Nimrod as a builder and ‘mighty hunter before the
Lord’ well typifies characteristics of Assyria’s early kings,
as featured in illustrations of hunting scenes carved on
rock.”
“Nimrod” was a jersonal, rather than a geographical,
name, He is presented in Scripture as founder of the
following Babylonian and Assyrian cities: Babel; the rise
of the great cities of Babylonia occurred very early in
the historic period: “the whole religion, culture and politi-
cal organization of Assyria were derived from the southern
state’’ (Skinner, ICCG, 21 1 ) . Erech; Babylonian city,
U r d , today ruins of Warka. Ejic of Gilganzesh glorifies
a legendary king of this perhaps most ancient city of
southern Mesopotamia. Accad (Akkad) , probably near
modern Bagdad. Seat of the first Semitic empire and of
a notable culture under its kings Sargon and Naram-Sin.
Calneh: also in the modern Bagdad area. Cf. Calno (Isa.
10:9, Amos 6:2) ; this city, however, apparently was in
Syria. The real Calneh was identified by Rawlinson with
the ruins of Niffer on the east of the Euphrates. Z n the
land of Sbiiiar, that is Sumer. Note that Nimrod is de-
scribed as having golie forth iizto Assyria, where he founded
certain other cities, as follows: Niizeveh: the original
Assyrian capital was Asshur, Nineveh seems to have been
put first here among Assyrian cities because of its dominant
role in the ancient world beginning with the reign of
Sennacherib in the 8th century B.C. Rebobotb-Ir: Cf.
61 3
 GENESIS
Gen. 36:37--“Rehoboth by the River,” that is, the Eu-
phrates? Then was this an appelation for Asshur? No
positive identification has yet been made. Cahh: excavated
by Layard 1845-8 and the British School of Archaeology
in Iraq, 1949-61. Thought t o have been founded by
Asshur, a follower of Nimrod, moving from Shinar.
Situated 24 miles south of Nineveh on the east bank of
the Tigris, near the modern Ninzrud. Resen: said to have
been located between Nineveh and Calah. Must have been
along the river Tigris, although positive identification has
not yet been made.
The following brief sketch of the history of Mesopotamia
is needed here (Cornfeld, AtD, 4 0 ) : “In lower Mesopo-
tamia, the region a t the head of the Persian Gulf, the
dominant ethnic, political and cultural group in the 3rd
millenium B.C.E. called its land Sumer (biblical Shinar) .
This phase is featured in material and written illustrations
from Ur, Uruch (biblical Erech), Lagash, and Eshnunna,
among others. Following the long phase of Sumerian
ascendancy came the historic period of the first Empire
under the Semitic dynasty founded by Sargon of Accad.
Sumerian and Semite co-existed and contended with each
other for political leadership until the end of the millenium,
but the prevailing culture was very much of a joint effort.
Though Accad was the main city and capital of the first
empire in Mesopotamia, it has not yet been identified. As
the civilization of Mesopotamia expanded, it separated into
different channels. In the south of Mesopotamia were the
Babylonians, whose city Babylon (biblical Babel) became
the capital of the great kingdom. Its peak of power and
glory was reached in the 18th and 17th centuries under
Hammurabi, one of the great rulers of Babylonia’s first
dynasty. The Semite inhabitants of western Mesopotamia
were known as Amorites. In the north a city on the river
Tigris was rising slowly to ever-increasing prominence. Its
614
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
name was Ashur, as was also t h a t of its chief god. The
state the city came to control was Assyria. The political
tide swung for the first time decisively in favor of Ashur
during the reign of the vigorous Tukutli Ninurta I, The
expansion of Ashur northward brought with it successive
transfers of the capital of Assyria from Ashur to Calah
to Nineveh. But Ashur remained the old tribal and re-
ligious capital in which the kings were buried, and Calah
was the military capital of ancient Assyria until it was
transferred to Nineveh. Thus Ashur, Calah, and Nineveh
were Assyria’s successive capital cities, well known in his-
tory and through archaeological discoveries.”
8. The Liiie of Sheiiz (10:21-32, 11:lO-32).
21 Aizd u n t o Sheiiz, the father of all the cbildreiz of
Eber, the elder brother of Japbeth, t o hiiiz also were
cbildreiz bor?z. 22 The soizs of Shein: Elaiiz, aiid Asshur,
and Arpachshad, aiid L u d , aizd A r a m . 23 Aiid the soizs
o f Aranz: Uz, aiid Hid, and Gether, aiid Mash. 24 Aizd
Arpachshad begat Shelah; aiid Shelah begat Eber. 2 j Ai?d
i m t o Eber were boivz t w o s o m : the iiaiize o f oize was Peleg;
f o r in his days was the earth divided; aizd his brother’s
izaiize was Joktaii. 26 Aiid Joktaiz begat Aliizodad, aizd
Sheleph, afid Hazariizavetfi, aiid Jerah, 27 aiid Hadorain.,
and Uzal, a i d Diklah, 28 aiid Obal, aiid Abiiizeal, and
Sheba, 29 aizd OPhir, aiyd Havilah, aizd Jobab: all these
were the soizs o f Joktaiz. 30 Aiid their dwelliiig was f r o m
Mesha, as thou goest toward Sephar, the iizouiztaiiz of thc
east. 31 These are the soiis of Sheiiz, after their faiizilies,
after their toiigues, in their lands, after their iiatioizs. 3 2
These are the faiizilies o f the sons of Noah, after their
geizeratioiis, iiz their izations; aiid of these were the iiatioizs
divided iiz the earth after the flood.”
The writer of Genesis, it will be noted, arranged his
genealogies in such a way t h a t the student is prepared for
the elaboration of the Line of Shein through Terah and
61 5
 GENESIS
Abraham. The five major branches of the Semitic family
are presented here: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and
Aram.
It: is fitting to add here the complementary genealogical
information from ch. 11:
10 These m e the generations of Shem. S h e m w m Q
hnudred years old, and begat Arpachshad lived after be
begat Shelah four hundred amd t h e e years, and begat sow
and daughters. 14 A n d Shelah lived t h i r t y years, mad
begat Eber: 1 fi and Shelah lived a f t m h e begat Eber f m r
hundred and three years, and begfit sons and daughters.
16 and Eber lived f o w and thirty years, and b e g d Peleg:
17 and Eber lived after h e begat, Peleg four rlszcndred and
t h i r t y years, and begat sons and daughters. 1 8 And Peleg
lived t h i r t y years, and begat Reu: 19 and Peleg lived
after b e begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat
sons and daughters. 20 A n d rest.^ lived two and thirty
years, and begat Serztg: 21 and R e u lived after he begat
Serug two hundred and seven years, m d begat sons a d
daughters. 2 2 A n d Serug lived thirty y e m , and begat
Nahor: 23 and Serug lived after he begat Nabor two
hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 24 A n d
NGhor lived nine and t w e n t y years, and begat Terah: 25
and N a b o r lived after h e begat Terah u hundred and
nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. 26 A n d
T e r a h lived seventy years, and begat A b r a m , Nahor, md
Haran. 27 N o w these are thle generations of Terah.
T e r a h begat A b r a m , Nahor, m d Haran; and Haran begat
Lot. 28 A n d Haran died before h?s father Terah in t h e
land o+ his nativity, in U r of t h e Chaldees. 29 A n d
A b r a m and N a h o r took t h e m wives: the name of Abram’s
w i f e was Sarai; and t h e name of Nabor’s w i f e , Milcah,
t h e daughter o f Haran, t h e father of Milcah, and the father
of Iscah. 30 A n d Sarai was barren; she had no child.
31 A n d Terah took A b r a m his son, and Lot the son of
61 6
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
Harail., his ~016’ssoit, aiid Sara), his dawgbter-iiz-law, his
soit A b r a i d s wife; aiid they weiit forth with theiiz froiiz
Ur of the Chaldees, to go i i i t o the laiid of Caiiaai?; aiid
they caine wiito Haraii, aiid dwelt there, 32 Aizd the days
of Terab were two h m d r e d aii,d five years: aiid Terab
died iiz Haraiz,”
Two important facts stand out in these Scriptures: (1)
the steady decrease in the longevity of t h e patriarchs
named (from 400 to about 200 years in the above table;
later to 177 years in the time of Abraham [Gen. 25:7],
and still later to 120 years in the time of Moses, Deut,
34:7) ; ( 2 ) t h a t the inspired writer steadily narrows the
Line of Shem down to its proper Messianic orientation as
his been his objective from the beginning. He is pointing
the Messianic development firstly toward the Abrahamic
Promise, and secondly to the giving of the Law a t Sinai,
and ultimately to the incarnate ministry of Messiah Him-
self, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of the living
God (Matt. 16:16). Such again is the unity of the Book
of Genesis in relation t o the Bible as a whole. We shall
now return to the account of the Line of Shem.
Elam,: well-known as the area beyond the Tigris, north
of the Persian Gulf, in the region around Susa. The Elam-
ites were warlike and a t one time controlled Lower Meso-
potamia. Later, Elam became a province of the Persian
Empire. In the Behistun Rock inscriptions of Darius I,
the Old Persian text is accompanied by Elamite and Baby-
lonian translations.
Asshur: Assyria; the shortened form, Syria. The most
fertile and densely populated area which lay east of the
central section of the Tigris valley. Its three great capitals
were Asshur, Calah, and Nineveh (cf. Jonah 1:1 ) . Arch-
aeology has proved t h a t it was inhabited before 5000 B.C.
At one time the Assyrian Empire extended across southwest
Asia as far as the Mediterranean and Lower Egypt.
617
 GENESIS
Arpachshud (or Arphaxad): name not yet found in
inscriptions, hence identification is not possible. (Cf.
Arrafia of Ptolemy’s Geography). Shelah: brought in from
Gen. 11:12. Was this a fiersonal name (cf. Methuselah,
Gen. 5:22)? Eber (cf. v. 14): the name is translated
CC
one who passes over,” and is the same as the word Hebrew
(Habiru) and as such was used later to designate Semitic
semi-nomads. “In his days was the earth divided,” hence
the name of his son, Peleg, meaning “division.” Does this
have reference to the dispersion following Babel ( 11: 1-9) ?
Or does it indicate a division between nomadic Arabs (a
name which is probably a dialectical variant of ‘eber’,
‘wanderer’) and those peoples settled on irrigated lands,
under Peleg (cf. NBD, 3 3 1 ) ? Peleg (cf. v. 1 6 ) , “divi-
sion.” Jokta~z,Peleg’s brother. Mere we have the list of
the thirteen Arabian tribes sired by Joktan; these tribes
(or peoples) occupied the southern regions of the Arabian
peninsula. T w o of the names occur in the Hamitic Line,
namely, Sheba and Havilah (cf. 10:7). Note the story
of the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon (1 Ki. 10:l-
13, cf. 2 Sam. 20:1, 1 Chron. 5:13, Josh. 19:2, Ezek.
27:22, Matt. 12:42:, also the mention of the “gold of
Ophir,” 1 Ki. 9:28, 10: 11). Sheba and Ophir obviously
were regions in the vicinity of modern Yemen; Havilah
was north of these areas (cf. Gen. 25:18, 1 Sam. 15:7).
(Concerning the appearance of Sheba as a descendant both
of H a m [v. 71 and of Shem [v. 281, Archer writes
[SOTI, 2013: “In all probability the Sabaeans were orig-
inally Hamitic, but continual intermixture with Semitic
neighbors in South Arabia finally altered their ethnic
complexion t o make them predominantly Semitic. Thus
both the relationship of verse 7 and that of verse 2 8 would
be correct.”) Note here also the supplementary list of
the successive descendants of Peleg in the Messianic Line
(11: 18-26) : R e u , probably a short form of Reuel, but not
61 8
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
as yet identified; Seyug, mentioned in Assyrian texts as a
city of t h e Haran district; Nahor, appears as N a k h w d ,
in Mari texts of the 2nd millenium B.C.; Terab, the old
city name of Haran district.
Lud, son of Sliem, Probably refers to the Lydians of
Asia Minor. When the rich Lydian King Croesus was
defeated by Cyrus t h e Great (c, 540 B.C.) Lydian au-
tonomy came to an end.
A r a w : the fifth son of Shem named, v. 22. The region
known as Syria; the most important of the Aramaic states,
Damascus, played a leading role in later Biblical history.
“Aram of the Two Rivers” (i-e., Paddan-aram) was the
name given to the region around Haran in northern Meso-
potamia where Laban and other members of Abraham’s
family settled. Note the “sons of Aram,” v. 23: U z , H u l ,
Getker, Mush: all unidentified as yet. Josephus takes Hul
to be Armenia, Gether to be Bactria, and Mash to be dis-
trict of Mesene a t the mouth of the Euphrates. These
identifications, however, are very questionable.
(For further appearances of the names in the Table of
Nations, the student is referred especially to First Chron-
icles, chapter 1, and to any complete Concordance of the
Old and New Testaments, For additional etymological,
historical and geographical information concerning the
names and places mentioned in the Table, see the Rand
McNally Bible Atlus (BA), Baker’s Bible Atlas (BBA),
The New Bible Dictionary (NBD), and the Table of
Nations Map 1, in the small but excellent Standard Bible
Atlas (Standard Publishing, Cincinnati) . Account must
be taken of the fact that some differences occur as to the
location of the different peoples represented in the Table,
in the various maps in which they are placed geographic-
ally. Many of the persons and peoples given in the Table
are simply as yet unidentifiable.)
619
 GENESIS
9 . The Importance of the Tuble of Nations
Whitelaw (PCG, 156) : “It is impossible to exaggerate
the importance of this ethnological table. Whether re-
garded from a geographical, a political, or a theocratical
standpoint, ‘this unparalleled list, the combined result of
reflection and deep research,’ is ‘no less valuable as a his-
torical document than as a lasting proof of the brilliant
capacity of the Hebrew mind.’ Undoubtedly the earliest
effort of the human intellect to exhibit in a tabulated form
the geographical distribution of the human race, it bears
unmistakable witness in its own structure to its high an-
tiquity, occupying itself least with the Japhetic tribes
which were farthest from the theocratic center, and were
latest in attaining to historic eminence, and enlarging with
much greater minuteness of detail on those Hamitic na-
tions, the Egyptian, the Canaanite, and Arabian, which
were soonest developed, and with which the Hebrews came
most into contact in the initial stages of their career. It
describes the rise of states, and, consistently with all subse-
quent historical and archaeological testimony, gives the
prominence t o the Egyptian or Arabian Hamites, as the
first founders of empires. It exhibits the separation of
the Shemites from the other sons of Noah, and the budding
forth of the line of promise in the family of Arphaxad.
While thus useful to the geographer, the historian, the
politician, it is specially serviceable to the theologian as
enabling him to trace the descent of the woman’s seed,
and to mark the fulfillments of Scripture prophecies con-
cerning the nations of the earth.”
Dean (OBH, 1 8 ) : “The tenth chapter of Genesis is the
oldest authority on ethnology. It gives the descendants
of Noah’s sons and their distribution. (1) Ham had
four sons who settled the Lower Euphrates and the Nile
valleys. The earliest civilizations were Hamitic. ( 2 )
Shem’s five sons settled southwestern Asia. They were
ancestors of the Chaldeans who conquered the earlier
620
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
Hamitic race on the Euphrates, of the Assyrians, Syrians,
Arabians, and Hebrews, ( 3 ) Japheth had seven sons,
from whom sprang the Medes, Greeks, Romans, and all
the modern races of Europe. They scattered widely, were
in obscurity for thousands of years, but for twenty-four
hundred years have been the ruling races of the world.”
10, The An.tiquity of M m
We have already noted that in the Neolithic Age
(roughly from 10,000 or 8,000 to 5,000 B.C,) plant and
animal domestication was fully developed, and pottery
began to put in appearance. We must take account also
of the polychrome paintings on cave walls, of hand-carved
artifacts (such as batons, used probably for magical pur-
poses), many specimens of which have been dug up by
the archaeologists and which must have been in existence
about the beginning of the Neolithic Period. The Chalco-
lithic Age (c. 5,000 to 3,000 B.C.) was marked by many
cultural advancements, skilled workmanship in copper,
flint, basalt, marble, limestone, ivory and bone; high de-
velopment of the imaginative-esthetic powers in man; and
along with this a highly developed agricultural civilization.
This age produced metallurgists, potters, weavers, smiths
and many other artisans of high attainments. The begin-
ning of skilled workmanship in bronze (in Scripture, brass)
occurred between 3,000 and 2,100 B.C. (Bronze is, of
course, an alloy of copper and t i n ) . The discovery and
widespread use of iron had its beginning from about 1,500
B.C.
When did homo saflieizs first put in appearance? Some
of the extravagant claims that are being made today for
the antiquity of man are ridiculous beyond description.
In recent months articles have appeared from time to time
claiming the discovery of human skeletal remains-a. few
here, and a few there-which indicate an antiquity of
some 100,000 years for the human being; by some this
figure has been extended farther back into the limbo of
62 1
 GENESIS
unrecorded time. One Dr. Leakey has been spreading his
assumptions of this character in the metropolitan press as
if they were “law and gospel,” when as a matter of fact
there is no possibility of proving the reliability of his
claims. One fact stands out in this connection which, to
this writer, needs some explanation. It is this: At the
rate of population growth such as we have witnessed in
our time, if homo sapiens existed 100,000 years ago, or
even 25,000 years ago, or even much fewer years ago,
there would have been billions of such creatures walking
the earth. If so, what happened to them? Have we found
any abundance of skeletal remains to prove that they had
already covered the surface of the earth with their pres-
ence? Why did they not invent anything of importance?
Why did they make little or no progress? What are the
evidences of their culture, even as existing prior t o the
evidences of culture found in the caves and on the cave
walls of early prehistoric species? If the human race had
spread over the earth fifty thousand years ago, or twenty-
five thousand years ago, it must have been a race of
“helpless critters.” Or, is it a fact that the Flood did
come and destroy them all? But even so, where are their
fossilized remains? It is not *about time to mix a little
common sense with academic nonsense? Some of these
claims are so absurd that-as an English philosopher once
p u t it-only a very learned man could possibly conjure
them up. It takes a great deal more “blind faith” to
accept these academic conjectures than to let God work
His sovereign Will as He may have chosen to doJnd does
now choose to do.
>$ >$ * >$ >$

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART TWENTY-THREE

1. How do the names of Noah’s sons indicate the charac-
ter of their respective Lines?
2. What is the correct meaning of the word “nation”?
62 2
 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIONS
3. What is the over-all principle of classification in the
Table of Nations?
4. Explain how the Table is arranged in climactic form?
5 . State the geographical distributions of the progenies
of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, respectively,
6. Why is the Table finally narrowed down to the Line
of Shem?
7. What is the general trend of the content of Genesis
a t this point?
8, Why does the Line from Shem to Abraham trace a
persoual descent?
9. Explain some of the problems involved in the “ex-
planation” of this Table of Nations.
10. Why were rivers the first arteries of transportation?
11. What do we conclude as to the original unity of the
race?
12. What are some of the facts which help us in the
interpretation of the Table of Nations?
13. Explain the three distinctive characteristics of a people
which may cause subtle variability in names.
14. How can we account for duplicate names in two or
more lists?
15. Explain what is meant by the statement that names
can be taken over from the Table of Nations to
equate with specific usages in modern times.
16. What is Albright’s comment about this Table?
17. What is meant by the statement that this Table is
not the basis of the common threefold division of
the races of mankind into Aryan, Semitic, and dark-
skinned peoples.
18. What was the geographical spread of the Japhethites?
19. Identify the following names in the Line of Japheth:
Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tarshish.
20, Identify the following sons of the Line of Ham:
Gush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan,
62 3
 GENESIS
21. Identify Havilah and Sheba of the Line of Canaan.
22. List the various Canaanite peoples and locate them
geographically.
23. What was the general geographical location of the
Phoenicians and Canaanites?
24. H o w is Nimrod described? What type of ruler does
this description indicate that he was?
25. Name and locate the Babylonian cities associated with
the name of Nimrod.
2 6. Name and locate the Assyrian cities associated with
h'is name.
27. Explain the historical and geographical relations be-
tween Babylonia and Assyria.
28. Name the sons of Shem and indicate the areas held
by the progeny of each.
29. Who were the Elamites and what was their location
and general history?
3 0. Who were the Assyrians and what were their great
Cities ?
3 1. Who was Joktan? How many tribes were sired by
him and what territory did they occupy?
32. With what people is the name of Lud associated?
33. Who were the Arameans and what territory did they
occupy?
34. Identify Sheba and Ophir.
35. Discuss the importance of this Table of the Nations.
3 6. How long has homo sapiens been upon this earth?
What are the objections to the extravagant claims
regarding his antiquity?
3 7. T o what ultimate events of such great importance to
the Plan of Redemption does the writer of Genesis
point by his method of gradually narrowing down
the genealogies from Shem to Abraham?
38. To what extent does the genealogical table in chapter
1 1 contribute to t h a t of chapter ten?
624
 PART TWENTY-FOUR:
THE BEGINNING AGAIN OF
HUMAN PRESUMPTION
(Gen, 11:1-9)
I
1. The Story o f Babel
“ A n d the whole earth was of one language and of on&
I
speech. 2 A n d it c a w to pass, as they journeyed east,
that they f o u v d a plaiii in the land of Shinar; and they
~ dwelt there. 3 A n d they said o m to another, Come, let
~

u s m a k e brick, and burn thein thoroughly. A n d they had

brick f o r stone, aiid sliine had they for mortar. 4 A n d
i they said, Come, let us build us a city, and a tower,
whose top m a y reach unto heaven, and let us m a k e us a
~
iiame; lest we be scattered abroad u p o n the face of the
whole earth. j Aiid Jehovah came dowii to see the c i t y
aizd tbe tower, which the children of men builded. 6
A n d Jehovah said, Behold, they are oiie people, and t h e y
have all one language; and this is w h a t they begin to do:
aiid now nothiiig will be witholden f r o m thein, which
they purpose to do. 7 Conze, let us go d o w n , and there
confouiid their laiiguage, that they m a y not understand
oiie ai6other’s speech. 8 So Jehovah scattered them abroad
froin theiice upon the face of all the earth: and they left
off building the city. 9 Therefore was the name of it
called Babel; because Jehovah did there confound the
language of all the earth: and from thence did Jehovah
scatter thein abroad upoii the face of all the earth,”
2. Relatioi% between the Tenth aiid Eleventh Chapters
of Gmesis.
The prevailing opinion seems to be that the outspreading
of the descendants of Noah, which is the subject-matter of
chapter ten, and the beginning of their scattering (dis-
persion) that is narrated in chapter eleven (the story of
Babel), refer to the same event. The latter being included
as a description of the manner in which the outspreading
originated, It will be recalled t h a t God commanded Adam
62F
 GENESIS
and his posterity to “be fruitful, and multiply, and re-
plenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen. 1 : 2 8 ) , and that a t
the beginning of the rebuilding of the race, after the
Flood, He issued the same command to Noah and his
progeny (Gen. 9: 1, 7 ) . This command undoubtedly en-
visioned a dispersion leading to the occupancy of the entire
earth. But what did man do, a f t e r the Flood? He did
just the opposite of what God had commanded; instead
of spreading abroad over the earth, the race concentrated
on “a plain in the land of Shinar” and started building
“a city, a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (v.
4). What motivated this defiance of God? “Let us
make us a name,” is the answer. Man from the beginning
has been trying to play God, to make a name f o r himself;
that is, to set his own authority up above the sovereignty
of God. Just as the Devil did, when he started the first
rebellion against the Divine government in Heaven, saying
to himself, “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God. . . . I will make myself
like the Most High” ( h a . 14:13-14); and just as Mother
Eve, moved by the deceptive suggestion that by eating
of the forbidden fruit she would “be as God, knowing
good and evil,” took of the *fruit thereof and did eat”
(Gen. 3 :6) and so brought sin into the world; so did the
progeny of Noah start building a tower to heaven that
they might make for themselves a name. (Is it not amaz-
ing what human beings will do just to perpetuate a per-
sonal or family name after their death?) Man has always
persisted in trying to be as God, to put his own will above
God’s willy to attain Heaven in his own way and on his
own terms instead of God’s way and on God’s terms. His
history on earth is the sad story of his burning passion to
achieve freedom from all restraints, his determination to
prostitute liberty into license under specious claims of
“academic freedom,” “personal liberty,” and the like. I n
his present state man is potentially an anarchist, and in
62 6
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
our day l i s drive for anarchy-for the rule of force above
t h a t of reason-seems to be more widespread than it has
ever been in all human history.
3. The Tower of BabeZ
( 1 ) Geograkby, Noah’s progeny journeyed “eastward,”
we are told, t h a t is, in an easterly direction. They came
to a plain in the land of Shinar “and dwelt there.” This
was the land in which the great cities of Babylon, Erech,
and Aldcad were situated; heiice the region is known in
the Bible, as it was known throughout t h e ancient world, as
Babylonia. It is generally held t h a t t h e people who first
occupied this area were Sumerians (who may have come
down froin the Armenian highlands) ; hence it came about
that Sumer is regarded by many authorities as roughly
equivalent to the area called Shinar in the Bible. Shinar
is first mentioned in Scripture as the place of the Tower
of Babel; in later history it became the place of exile
for the Jews (Isa. 11:11, Dan. 1:2).
( 2 ) Ni7izrod aiid Babel. (a) Kraeling (BA, 46) : “The
story of Nimrod is meaningful in several respects, That
the beginning of his kingdom was in Babylonia and that
from there he went to Assyria, accurately reflects the fact
that the Assyrian civilization was of Babylonian origin;
and t h a t he was a great builder and hunter typifies two
leading characteristics of t h e eastern monarchs as such.
Tiglathpileser I (1100 B.C.) well illustrates for us what
it means to be a ‘mighty hunter before the Lord.’ A
servant goes before his master in executing his commands,
and hence a king, too, goes before God as His servant.
At the command of his god, says Tiglathpileser, he killed
four wild bulls on the Syrian border and ten elephants in
the Haran area; a t the command of his god he killed 1 2 0
lions, hunting on foot, and 800 from his chariot. , . .
Hunting was not a mere sport, but part of royalty’s
obligations.” (b) Though not one of t h e ethnic heads in
t h e Table of Nations, Nimrod is introduced into the regis-
627
 GENESIS
ter of peoples as the founder of imperialism. Under him,
society passed in a large measure from the patriarchal
system, in which each separate clan or tribe recognized
the sovereignty of its natural head, into that (more abject,
or more civilized, depending on the way it is viewed) in
which different tribes or nations recognized the govern-
ance of one who was not their natural head, but has
acquired his ascendancy and dominion by conquest. East-
ern tradition has always pictured Nimrod as a gigantic
oppressor of the people’s liberties and a rebel against God.
Josephus charges him with actually having instigated the
building of the Tower of Babel. Attempts have been
made to identify him with Marduk, the patron deity of
Babylon, and with Gilgamesh, the Babylonian national hero,
but of course such identifications are without positive
confirmation from any as yet known source. The Bible
record positively associates him with Babel, the primitive
name for Babylon, but not explicitely with the building
of the Tower of Babel, although from the account we have
of him such an act of presumption on his part would have
been wholly in character.
( 3 ) The Tower. (a) In the story of the Tower of
Babel, we have the first mentioniin the Bible of brick-
making and cement work. Tacitus, Strabo, Josephus, and
Pliny are unanimous in stating that the brick walls of
Babylon were cemented with bitumen (A. V. slime).
Layard the archaeologist tells us that the bricks were
united so firmly that recent excavators have found it
impossible to detach one from the mass. (Clay was used
for bricks, and bitumen for mortar). The people in-
volved in building this tower were motivated, we are told
in Scripture, by the urge to build something that would
reach up to heaven, thus to make them a name for them-
selves lest they be scattered over the earth; that is, by
the building of such a tower to frustrate God’s will for
them to replenish the whole earth. This sounds entirely
62 8
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
and tragically b?mav. “This, we may depend upon it, was
no republic of builders, no cooperative association of brick-
layers and briclrlayers’ laborers, bent on immortalizing
themselves by the work of their own hands, This early
effort a t centralization, with a huge metropolis as its
focus, sprang, we may be quite sure, from the brain of
some ambitious potentate, and was baptized, frOm the
very first, in the blood and sweat and misery of toiling
.
millions’’ (Biblical Illustrator, illA loco) (b) It should
be noted t h a t the tower was built in connection with a
city, The difficulty of identifying the site of this under-
taking arises chiefly from the fact t h a t the materials of
which the tower was built have been removed a t various
times for the construction of the great cities which have
successively replaced it. There is but little question, how-
ever, that the city was Babylon itself, and the trend of
scholarship a t first was to identify the Tower of Babel
with the Temple of Belus, described by Herodotus, which
is found in the dilapidated remains of the Birs-Nimrud,
Kitto has written (CBL) “To Nimrod the first founda-
tions of the tower are ascribed; Semiramis enlarged and
beautified it; but it appears that the Temple of Bel, in
its most renowned state, was not completed until the
time of Nebuchadnezzar, who, after the accomplishment
of his many conquests, consecrated this superb edifice to
the idolatrous object to whom he ascribed his victories.”
The signal disappointment of the founders of this edifice
shows that, from the very first, the entire project was an
offense unto God. It seems to have existed, from the
outset, in derogation of the Divine glory. Throughout
the Scripture, Babel, Babylon, and Baal, are terms which
stand for everything opposed to the testimony of God.
(b) Recent and more complete knowledge of Babylonian
writing has caused archaeologists to reject the identifica-
tion suggested in the foregoing paragraph. Kraeling (BA,
629
 GENESIS
54): “The lofty Birs N i m r u d , the ruins of which are
visible far across the plains, was long believed to be the
Tower of Babel. Since the site of Babylon was known
because of the mound Babil, near modern Hillah, it had
to be supposed that the city covered a very large area.
But after scholars learned to read and understand the
Babylonian writing it was shown that Birs N i m r u d was
the tower of the city of Borsippa. The tower meant by
the Biblical story was, of course, that of Babylon itself.
This tower, frequently rebuilt and renewed by the Baby-
lonian kings, was called in Sumerian E-temen-an-ki, ‘House
of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth,’ and the temple
in which it stood was called E-sag-ila, ‘House that Lifts
up the Head.’ The tower was leveled to the ground by
Alexander the Great, who planned to rebuild it in sur-
passing glory but who died before he could do so. In
the excavations carried on a t Babylon by the German
Oriental Society, 1899-1918, the site where it stood was
determined. ”
( c ) The temple-tower (ziggurat) was an architectural
feature characteristic of Babylonian cities, the center of
their worship, and home of the priestly caste. The typical
ziggurat is described by Wiseman (NBD, 116) as follows:
“The base measured 295 x 295 feet and was 108 feet high.
Above this were built five platforms, each 20-60 feet
high, but of diminishing area. The whole was crowned
by a temple where the god was thought to descend for
intercourse with mankind. Access was by ramps or stair-
way~.~,
(4) The N a m e , Babel. In the Genesis account, the name
Babel is explained by popular etymology based on a similar
Hebrew root, balal, meaning “mixing” or “confusion.”
Other authorities insist that the name is actually Babylon-
ian, and is composed of two words, Bab-&, meaning ‘egate
of god.” Babel, as Babylon throughout its history became
63 0
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
a symbol of man’s pride and arrogance which led inevit-
ably to his fall. (We have here an echo of the theme of
the histories by Herodotus, “The Father of History,”
namely, t h a t Nemesis [Retributive Justice] is certain ulti-
mately to overtalce human pride and arrogance. (JB, 27,
.
n,) : “, , mankind sinned and this was his punishment:
it was a sin of overweening pride (v. 4) like that of our
first parents, ch. 3 , Unity will be restored only in Christ
the savior, cf. the Pentecostal gift of tongues, Ac. 2:j-12,
and the gathering of all the nations in heaven, Rv. 7:9-
10.”
4. The Confusion of Tongues. (1) Note the anthro-
pomorphism here, “And Jehovah came down to see the
city and tower, which the children of men builded” (v.
5 ) . Note the emphasis on “the children of men”-is
this irony? ( 2 ) Note also the ccusyy in v. 7, “Let us go
down, and there confound their language,” etc. Obviously,
the Lord said t h a t within Hiiizself. Does not this state-
ment, as in the other similar passages in the Old Testament
(cf. Gen. 1:26, Isa. 6:8) indicate a Divine coiisilinz be-
tween the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? ( 3 ) That human
iniquity has its root always in rebelliousness is a theme
that pervades the Bible from first to last. By way of con-
trast, however, the superstition that God’s jealousy is
grounded in His fear that man might usurp a measure of
His sovereignty was a commonplace throughout the ancient
pagan world, and this Divine jealousy was thought of as
reaching a t times the point of exasperation which brought
down upon the sinner the wrath of all the polytheistic
deities. (Aristophanes, for example, in one of his great
comedies, The Birds, pictures the establishment of a king-
dom of the birds, midway between earth and Mount
Olympus and the consequent exasperation of the Olympian
deities a t being able no longer to smell the sweet savor
of human sacrifices: cf. Part Twenty-two supra, under
“Noah’s Altar,” Gen. 8 :2 1) , Modern Biblical critics, those
63 1
 GENESIS
who insist on reading “folklore” into the Old Testament
narratives would have us believe that the Genesis account
of Babel is simply an echo of the pagan concept of Divine
motivation. The more reusonable view is that the Pagan
concept wus simply a corruption of the fundurnenfa1 Scrip-
ture truth that what happened at Babel was just another
instgnce of man’s trying to play God, o r to be as God
(cf. Satan’s motivation, 1 Tim. 3:6, Isa. 14:13-14, Luke
10:18; and Eve’s, Gen. 3:5-6), GS a matter of fact rt
munif estuticun of man’s insolence and disobedience that
God could not overlook; to have done so would have been
equivalent to His sanctiolning human rebelliousness (sin).
Again, we find that truth becomes apparent to the un-
baised mind only when the whole of Bible teaching is
taken into consideration. God’s jealousy is a “godly jeal-
ousy’, (2 Cor. 11:2-3), which has for its end man’s own
good. True love can never be unconcerned when it is
scorned by the one who is loved, and rejected in favor of
the way of sin, the broad way that is certain t o lead to
man’s destruction (Matt. 7:13-14). The whole inhabited
world is threatened today by man’s misuse of the forces
he has discovered and unleashed. What the consequence
would be if he should ever attain the fullness of knowledge
of himself and his physical environment is horrible to con-
template. (4) The action of Noah’s descendants, in con-
centrating on the plain of Shinar, and attempting to build
a city and a tower that would reach unto Heaven, dis-
pleased God for several reasons: in the first place, it was
the beginning of imperialism and hence was in direct de-
fiance of eternal righteousness, as all world empires have
been; cf. Matt. 26:12, that is, the individual or the nation
that makes force the guiding principle of life will sooner
or later encounter, and be destroyed by, superior force;
in the second place, it manifested a tendency toward in-
ordinate pride, the very opposite of that humility which
should always characterize human intercourse with the
632
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
Creator and Preserver of mankind; in t h e third place, it
was a case of flagrant disobedience to God’s command, as
we have noted: He commanded Noah’s progeny to re-
plenish the whole earth, but they did just the opposite-
they concentrated on the plain of Shinar and tried to
storm the battlements of Heaven, What then did God
do? He came down and confounded their language and
scattered them abroad “upon the face of all the earth.”
( 5 ) *Could it be t h a t there was another aspect of the
people’s motivation a t Babel, namely, t h a t they had either
forgotten God’s promise never again to destroy mankind
with the waters of a flood, or probably put no trust in
His covenant-promise, and sought by the building of this
tower unto Heaven to put themselves out of reach of a
repetition of the Deluge?
5. The Problem of Race
The origin of race distinctions continues to be an un-
solved problem in anthropology and indeed in all sciences.
That all ethnic groups, primitive, prehistoric and historic,
“can be regarded as integrading varieties of a single species,
honzo sapieizs.” seems to be one unavoidable conclusion.
That the lines of demarcation between races have again
and again been obliterated by interbreeding, is another.
The consensus of the scientific world seems to be that
three primary races must be recognized: these are the
Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid. To these
some anthropologists add the Composite (resulting from
“the hybridization of one or more of the three primary
groups or of races derived from them severally”) and the
Amerindian. Even these classifications leave unsolved the
mysteries of such peoples as the native Australians, the
Veddoid peoples (of India, Farther India, and the East
Indies), the Ainu of northern Japan, and t h e Polynesians,
living within “the great island triangle Hawaii-New Zea-
land-Easter Island.” (See Kroeber, Anfhropology, Ch. 4,
63 3
 GENESIS
published by Harcourt, Brace). The fact remains, how-
ever, that the origin of primary racial distinctions and dis-
tributions is clouded in obscurity.
The origin of language, and of the diversity of lan-
guages, is equally obscure. (See my Genesis, Vol. I, pp.
5 2 3 - 5 2 5 ) . Science is simply lacking any naturalistic theory
of the origin of language: the only two theories thus far
advanced, the interjectional and the onomatopoetic, are
woefully inadequate, a fact which is recognized by the
scientists themselves. It seems obvious that diversification
of languages must have gone hand in hand with diversifi-
cation of ethnic groups. As one anthropologist puts it:
“Anthropologists are in general agreement that language
grew up in correlation with culture.” “Culture began
when speech was present; and from then on, the enrich-
ment of either meant the further development of the
other” (Kroeber, ibid., 2 2 5 ) . And a culture, to be sure,
is the culture of a particular ethnic group or people. This
boils down to the fact that diversification of language
must have taken place along with the separation of peoples
from one another. Thus in the final analysis we can
account for the origin of diversity of tongues most logically
on the basis of supernaturd impulse that brought abroad
the replenishing of the whole emih by the progeny of
Noah, according to the story of what happened to Babel.
But we must not overlook the fact that diversification in
either case, whether of language or of ethnic groups,
certainly points back to an original unity, and so sanctions
the truth declared by the great Mars Hill preacher, that
God “made of one every nation of men to dwell on all
the face of the earth,’ (Acts 17:26).
6. Other Accounts of the Dispersion
The Chaldeans had a tradition, we are told, that the
first men, relying on their size and strength, built a tower
toward Heaven in the place where Babylon afterward was
634
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
situated, but t h a t the winds assisted t h e gods in bringing
the building down on the heads of the builders, and t h a t
out of the ruins of t h e tower Babylon was later built,
The same tradition informs us that prior to this event, men
had spoken the same tongue, but afterward, by the agency
of the gods they were made to differ in speech. Plato
reports a tradition that in the Golden Age, which is pic-
tured by many of the Greek poets and philosophers, men
and animals made use of one common language, but too
ambitiously aspiring to immortality, Zeus confounded their
speech as a punishment. Inklings of t h e same event are
to be found in the traditions of other peoples. For some
strange reason, however, Berosus does not refer to the
event. Eusebius quotes Abydenus as saying that “not long
after the Flood, the ancient race of men were so puffed
up with their strength and tallness of stature t h a t they
began t o despise and contemn the gods, and labored to
erect that very lofty tower which is now called Babylon,
intending thereby to scale the heavens. But when the
building approached the sky, behold, the gods called in
the aid of the winds, and by their help overturned the
tower, and cast it to the ground! The name of the ruin
is still called Babel, because until this time all men had
used the same speech; but now there was sent upon them
a confusion of many and diverse tongues” (Praeo. Ev.,
ix, 1 4 ) . Whitelaw (PCG, k66) : “The diligence of the
late George Smith has been rewarded by discovering the
fragment of an Assyrian tablet (marked K 3657 in British
Museum) containing an account of the building of the
tower, in which t h e gods are represented as being angry
a t the work and confounding the speech of the builders.”
Let us remember t h a t corrupted versions of events in the
early ages of mankind point directly to the certainty of a
true account. Every counterfeit presupposes a genuine.
K :I. :I. :I. b:

63 5
 GENESIS
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
1. “Let us muke f o r ourselves a name,” cried the builders
of the Tower of Babel. T o make a name for himself was
man’s objective on the plain of Shinar, and it seems to be
his overpowering ambition even to this day. To make a
name for himself, Satan rebelled against the Divine gov-
ernment, and man has persistently followed in his steps.
History is replete with the names of men who have lived
and died and performed mighty works, just to make a
name for themselves. For world honor, Alexander of
Macedon conquered the peoples of his day and is said to
have wept because there were no more to conquer. For
world honor Caesar planted the Roman eagle in the moun-
tain fastnesses of Gaul and Germany, and write several
volumes in praise of himself and his armies. For the sake
of a great name Napoleon swept across the continent of
Europe, while the widow’s sob and the orphan’s wail
furnished the music for his marching hosts. For political
baubles, a seat in Congress, a place on the judicial bench,
yes, even a paltry county office, men have sold out moral
principle, forsaken the church, and crucified Jesus Christ
anew. Personal ambition has been the real cause of more
wars in human history than any other single factor. What
sins have been committed for the sake of world h ~ n o r !
Whether we contemplate man on the plain of Shinar, or
on the banks of the Tiber, or in the Hindenburg Line, or
before the burning walls of Stalingrad, we find him to be
the same worldly-ambitious, self-seeking, God-excluding,
rebellious creature. And as it is in the state, so has it been
in the history of the Church: Personal ambition has ever
been the source of the usurption of authority by a self-
constituted clergy, and the consequent growth of hier-
archical systems that the destroy of freedom of local
churches and even presume t o legislate for the state as
well as for the denominational world. Man loves power,
63 6
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
and to have a iiame t h a t elicits such modes of address as
“Reverend,” “Right Reverend,” “Very Reverend,” etc., is
I
t o have power over a fawning constituency, “Power cor-
rupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
2. N i m r o d was probably ifhe first of that t y p e of “va-
tional heroes” (“beneuoleiit dicta for?) who become tyrants)
to whom the world has always accorded deference. He
was a noted, and probably notorious, hunter, builder, ruler;
no doubt he was a hero in t h e eyes of t h e populace. We
are all inclined to hero-worship, said Thomas Carlyle, and
he told the truth, but the trouble is that we overrate
physical, and underrate iizoral, heroism. It takes more
courage oftentimes to stand for a principle, and to resist
a temptation, than to help take a city. We admire the
soldier with his khaki and gun and martial tread (as
indeed we should if he fights and often dies for a good
cause), but we forget about the patient souls who have
lived and died for the testimony of Christ: missionaries
and preachers of the Cross who have poured out their
blood for humanity without expecting anything of this
world’s goods in return. Moral heroism is the noblest
kind of heroism. Think of Paul, HUSS,Savonarola, W y -
clif fe, Livingstone, and indeed the multitude who have
lived for the faith and died for it, including the Apostles
of our Lord Jesus Christ. When we compare the heroism
of Nimrod with that of the world’s greatest Hero, the
former pales into insignificance. Consider, theref ore, the
true Hero as He is portrayed by the prophet Isiah (Y3: 1-
9 ) , Which kind of heroism do you seek to exalt and
prefer t o emplate, t h a t of the mighty hunter before Je-
hovah, or that of the Cross of Calvary?
3 . God does n o t approve the coiiceiitratioii of popula-
tioiz. His original command to Adam was to multiply,
replenish the earth, and subdue it. Instead of heeding
the Divine order, Adam’s posterity proceeded to build
cities and gather into them (cf. Gen. 4:17). The Divine
63 7
 GENESIS
command to Noah and his sons was the same, to “multiply,
and replenish the earth” (Gen. 9: I ) , not just a part of it,
but all of it. God built the earth for man and He wants
man to use it in its fullness. Instead of obeying God’s
command, however, Noah’s progeny followed in the foot-
steps of their antediluvian forebearers and began to erect
cities and to live in them. What an array of cities is
mentioned in the tenth chapter of Genesis! Instead of
dispersing, the race comcentrated, as on the plain of Shinar.
Concentration of population, however, has always been
productive of increased vice, crime, neurosis, insanity,
divorce, suicide, and like social ills. It fosters disregard
for the dignity and worth of the individual: in the big
city he degenerates into the mass-man. The social ills
which press upon us today for solution, such as gangster-
ism, racketeering, all forms of crime, slum districts, juve-
nile delinquency, political graft and corruption, breakdown
of home life, etc., are largely the consequence of the
gathering of population into urban centers. History con-
firms the fact that city life breeds lust, vice, crime, and
sin in all its forms. Babylon, Nineveh, Susa, Persepolis,
Memphis, Thebes, Athens, Sparta, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage-
the great cities of history-dropped from world power
into oblivion simply because their iniquities were too great
for Jehovah to endure. Where are the hotbeds of crime
in our day? Paris, London, Rome, New York, Chicago,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Canton, Tokyo, Istanbul, Cairo,
Manila, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, etc., etc., all the big
cities on the face of the earth. We are told by govern-
ment statisticians that the American people are forsaking
rural life rapidly in our time and crowding into the big
cities. The automobile has urbanized rural life. The In-
dustrial Revolution has accelerated urbanization. This
inevitably will spell tragedy. Disintegration of home life,
corruption of social life, and neglect of church life, are
the certain consequences to be expected, and they are
63 8
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
already upon us. Regardless of racial characteristics or
moral standards, wherever and whenever men have con-
centrated instead of scattering, they have degenerated. Of
cours God knows this: hence His order was to multiply,
and to replenish t h e whole earth.
4. God has provided a spiritual plaiz of ussociafioii for
mm to coiaiiteract the hnmoral inf Iueiices t o which a??
ever-increasing poj?datio?t is always subjecf. h a . 8 : 9 - 10.
When inen associate themselves, they do it to make a
name for themselves in the earth. Hence God does not
approve these associations for human ends, especially when
they are extended beyond all reasonable limits. When God
associates men, however, He does it, not for an earthly, but
for a Divine purpose. On the great Day of Pentecost, as
recorded in the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit came down
and associated men on His own ground, around His center
(Christ), and for His purpose (redemption). At Babel
there was confusion of tongues, and dispersion; on Pente-
cost, there was confusion of tongues, and unification!
God came to Pentecost to gather humanity under one
language (the language of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2 : 6 - 1 5 ) , one
faith, one hope, one life, one Body of Christ. He came
to gather fallen men and women around the glorious
Person of a crucified and risen Christ, and to unite them
in the one spiritual Body, the Church. Human association
breeds wickedness, but this Divine association, through
spiritual means, on a spiritual basis, and for a spiritual
purpose under God, makes this world a fairly decent place
in which to live. And this is the only fellowship t h a t will
do so. One of the important arguments for foreign mis-
sions is that the world must be Christianized, a t least t o a
considerable extent, or humanity will degenerate into self -
destruction. We face the alternative today, as man never
faced it before, of Christianizing humanity or of becoming
paganized ourselves. Christianity is a religion of this
world as well as of the world to come.
63 9
 GENESIS
5 . Babel, man’s work, pointed forward to Pentecost,
God’s work. When men associate themselves, they do it
for selfish purposes; hence God does not look with favor
on such associations. Imperialism, whether of king, caste,
or class, is an avowed enemy of righteousness (cf. Acts
1 7 : 2 6 ) . When God associates men, He does it for a
Divine principle and upon a Divine basis. A t Babel, there
was confusion of tongues and dispersion. On Pentecost,
in Jerusalem, A.D. 30, there was confusion of tongues and
unification (Acts 2 : l - 3 6 ) . God came on Pentecost
through the Holy Spirit to gather humanity into one body,
with one hope, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one language, and one life. Human associations too often
breed irreligiousness, but this Divine association, on a
spiritual basis, and for a spiritual purpose, makes all those
who enter the Covenant partakers of the Divine nature
( 2 Pet. 1: 4 ) , We may prate about “peace,” “peace with
justice,” and the like, until we are blue in the face: the
fact is that order, peace, and justice are possible only in
Christ (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 8 : 1 , 1 Cor. 12:13, 2 Cor. 5:17,
Eph. 2 : 11-22, etc.) , The Church is God’s Spiritual Temple
which reaches unto Heaven (Eph. 2:19-22, Heb. 12:23,
Rev. 11:19).
6. Babylon, in scripture, stands fur everything t h t is
opposed to the testimorcy of God. In the early age of the
world, a t Babel we have the beginning of organized opposi-
tion to God’s command. Thereafter, Babylon stands for
organized opposition to Christianity, for organized im-
perialism in church and state. As Babylon, in Old Testa-
ment history, was the unfailing enemy of Jerusalem, so
spiritual Babylon, the apostate church, in the history of
Christendom, has been the unfailing enemy of the true
Church of Christ (cf. the many references to Babylon
in the Old Testament; also Rev. 14:8, 17:5, 18:10, 21;
Gal. 4:26; Rev. 3:12, 21:2, l o ) .
* > $ * * *

640
 BEGINNING AGAIN OF HUMAN PRESUMPTION
REVIEW QUESTIONS O N PART TWENTY-FOUR
1, Relate the story of Babel as found in Genesis 11.
2, What is the relation between the tenth and eleventh
chapters of Genesis?
3. What did God tell man to do about occupying t h e
earth after the Flood?
4. What did man do about this?
5 , What, according to Scripture, prompted Noah’s prog-
eny to try to build a tower to Heaven?
6. How was their attitude indicative of man’s attitude
in all ages?
7. Where was the land of Shinar?
8. What was the connection between Nimrod and Babel?
9 , What probably did the phrase descriptive of Nimrod
as “a mighty hunter before Jehovah” mean?
IO. What change in political structure probably began
with Nimrod?
11. Why do we say that man has always been inclined
to hero-worship?
12. What is probably the correct identification of the
Tower of Babel?
13. State briefly the history of this famous Tower.
14. State the Hebrew etymology of this name. State the
Babylonian etymology of it.
15. What has Babel always symbolized in human history?
16. State the Herodotean doctrine of Nemesis. Would
you say that it is true?
17. What was the Babylonian temple-tower called. Give
Wiseman’s description of such a tower.
18. What is the significance of the “us” in v. 7?
19. What is the pagan view of God’s motivation in such
cases as t h a t of the Babel incident?
20. What motivation does the Biblical account of Babel
ascribe t o God?
64 1
 GENESIS
21. How does this compare with God’s motive in putting
down human rebellion in other cases mentioned in
Scripture ?
22. How does it compare with Satan’s rebellion? With
Eve’s decision?
23. What were the reasons why the people’s attitude a t
Babel was so displeasing to God?
24. Does science have any explanation of the origin of
race distinctions?
25. What are considered to be the three primary races?
26. Name some of the ethnic groups which do not fit
into these classifications.
27. Why do we say that diversification of ethnic groups
is accomplished by diversification of language, and
vice versa?
28. What are some of the other accounts of the Dis-
persion?
29. What has always been man’s besetting ambition, as
exemplified by the story of Babel?
3 0. Why cannot men be entrusted with power?
3 1. Why do men overrate pbysicd heroism and underrate
moral heroism?
32. State the reasons why God does not approve concen-
tration of population.
33. What social and moral ills always accompany exces-
sive urbanization?
3 4. What is God’s spiritual Plan of Association of man-
kind as distinguished with man’s own systems of
association?
35. Contrast Babel and Pentecost.
3 6. What does Babylon stand for in Scripture?
37. Trace the Biblical doctrine of the conflict between
ccBabylon”and Jerusalem.”
642
ARABIA